Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 19

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 18 October 20 October >

Purge server cache

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 cleaned out. The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lipase enzyme (grease removal technology)

edit
Lipase enzyme (grease removal technology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trademarked bacteria sold by some company, I can't find any evidence of notability beyond self-promotion of the company. The sources in the article are not sources or do not actually talk about this specific product.

Speedy Delete per WP:ADVERT. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment: I found a page [1] where many people were talking about this product and how it's pretty much a scam, not to mention that the company "Septic Savior" behaved in an extremely fishy manner. That makes me doubt the article's claims even more than I already did. Apparently this is a snake oil type company with a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to. I'm changing my vote from delete to speedy delete. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Funk

edit
Harold Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD with a reason that sounds to me similar to Nixon's secret plan to win the Vietnam War ("I'm de-prodding this because I have a lead that might indicate that he was on the Cardinals' roster for the 1928 World Series.") Uh, no Alex, he was not. If you're not serious, that's pretty disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a picture of the 1928 World Series team that listed Hal Funk as a member. I just checked again and now it is listed only as "Funk." See here: [2] Alex (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are not a reliable source. B Ref makes no mention of a "Funk". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference wouldn't have listed him anyway if he was on the roster but didn't play. Alex (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he was on the roster and didn't play, that doesn't pass BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not enough for notability, but some biographical details of later life can be found here.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (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, though note that several editors recommended reviewing this and other "Occupy X" articles once the protests have ended. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Sacramento

edit
Occupy Sacramento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads like a news report, and actually has less information than one. Non-notable protest, which does not warrant a separate article in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Topic immediately passes the top notability guideline, WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage to establish notability. I've added more information and references to the Occupy Sacramento article. The general notability guideline makes no mention regarding number of arrests during an event, things that occur during an event, etc. as consideration for article inclusion or exclusion. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a newspaper. If we keep adding more and more articles on all these "occupy" protests because CNN or NBC or ABC or Reuters mentioned it, we'll have a good few hundred. Although I do agree that NA1000 has good point, that doesn't warrant the creation of another "Occupy" article. However, it still isn't notable, IMO, although it may have considerable media coverage. Although there are arrests, that's out of only 200 protesters, and that statement about the "If you're an occupier, you know who you are" really isn't encyclopedic. It simply sounds like a newspaper article or online news article about Occupy Sacramento, not a Wikipedia article that establishes the notability and doesn't contain trivial info. HurricaneFan25 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AfD discussion is about the notability of the Occupy Sacramento article only. This isn't a forum for discussion regarding hypothetical creation of other "Occupy" articles. How does the availability of reliable sources for this topic not pass WP:GNG? It seems apparent that the topic does pass this fundamental guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
The article is just a stub and I stepped back to allow others to add to it. However as far as notablity...Sacramento is the California State Capital and the protests occur at the state capital as well as Cezar Chavez Park. Total arrests thus far are 68 including activist Cindy Sheehan best known for her occupation outside former President George W. Bush's Texas ranch. Wikipedia has no limitation on the number of associated articles and the argument that this is "another" occupy article is not an argument at all. As far as the quote...it doesn't have to sound encyclopedic and is another false argument...it's a quote mentioned in the article used as the reference which simply speaks to the warning the organizers were giving before arrests. The number of protester mentioned above here at 200 is not the total of protestors but who were there at that moment. There are a enough reliable sources with enough information to expand the article by a good deal.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Wikipedia article traffic statistics I just checked, Occupy Sacramento has been viewed 284 times thus far in October 2011. This is a global statistic, for all page views of this article on the planet, including the edits I have made to the page. Arguments that this article is intended to facilitate social networking or exists as a means to organize protests don't correlate with the statistics whatsoever. See also WP:NOTPAPER: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the editor that began the article I can tell you it isn't a trying to organize anything. Were my edits to Meg Whitman's page during the election an attempt to promote Whitman...or the nearly equal amount of edits I made to Jerry Brown. No...people passionate about the subject are perfect editors to contribute to these articles and does not constitute active organizing of anything but the actual article. Assuming bad faith is one thing, but you are assuming the start of the article was meant as an organizing effort for the movement itself instead of just the stub article it was, on a notable event in my area. There are a lot more of these protests out here....and they are un-notable, even if they are getting media coverage.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is NOT a NEWSPAPER. Listen again! Wikipedia is NOT a NEWSPAPER. Read under #2: "News reports". This article is written like a news report, and this is non-notable. You can argue that this article is notable by 1) the number of arrests; while it is large compared to other "Occupy" protests, all the value it adds to the article is just a fancy number on a fancy event in a protest. 2) You could also argue that the number of participants is significant - 200, but compared to Occupy Boston, it's nothing. 3) The article is practically made up only of a short lede, what a protester said, an infobox, and information on arrests, which is pretty shallow depth. HurricaneFan25 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The topic's notability surpasses WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources. Comparisons to other protests, some of which have their own articles, aren't relevant to this discussion. AfD is about topic notability, not comparisons to other events. See also WP:NOTPAPER: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three thousands words to say: "Lasting significance — IN, Passing significance — OUT." So, close this No Consensus and we'll figure that out when we figure that out...
Money lines:
  • Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
  • Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
So this corrects my wrongheadedness here, how exactly??? Carrite (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Thanks for clarifying that. Silly me, always thinking that it was not. Perhaps you could re-write the appropriate policies and guidelines, so that those of us who still suffer from the delusion that we're trying to create an encyclopedia here will be enlightened? Thanks. Oh, and period. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2011 (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. Noting that this is a procedural non-admin closure, as per this edit an admin attempted to close the AFD but part of it had not worked correctly. Enquiries regarding the outcome of the AFD should be directed to Mkativerata (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the closing admin. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven, the only comment I was going to make in my closing rationale is that a lot of the keep !votes seemed to ignore the requirements of WP:EVENT for "enduring historical significance". According to WP:EVENT, coverage in sources is rarely sufficient to establish notability alone. Therefore this debate may very well be re-opened down the track when the event's significance, if any, can be properly assessed. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Buffalo

edit
Occupy Buffalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was redirected, as is proper for an article with so little encyclopedic content; the redirect was undone with the claim that such amounted to deletion. Here we are: there is no encyclopedic content, only some facts gleaned from news reports. There is no earth-shattering revolution in Buffalo, certainly not a "civil conflict" as the infobox suggests. These events, as important as they may be to the good people of Buffalo (and the bad ones too), do not warrant an article. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect per WP:EVENT: no lasting effects; narrow geographical scope; shallow coverage; no diversity of sources and the news cycle seems short on this one, too. Note I am not speaking of the general "occupy" articles but specifically of this article. WTucker (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic passes the foremost notability guideline: WP:GNG. Additionally, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage for notability to be continuously established. Occurrences during an event and the number of arrests that may occur aren't congruent with topic notability— topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves.
I've added the following reliable sources to this article, which further demonstrates notability:
Northamerica1000(talk) 03:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There are no arrests; none. 2) According to a local newspaper, there have been only 200 participants — compared to Occupy Boston, it's nothing. 3) The article is practically made up only of a short lede, an infobox, and a chronology. The MSNBC article only quotes some protesters and Pelosi. HurricaneFan25 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (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. The rewrite has taken place and in its new form the article's subject is deemed notable enough to stay.  Sandstein  06:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.sex.stories

edit
AfDs for this article:
Alt.sex.stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research essay. No citations, no indication of external coverage of the subject. Would require a complete rewrite to make it encyclopedic. WP:TNT causa sui (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The previous nomination (back in 2005) failed largely because of the moralization in the nomination surrounding allegations that this newsgroup was a distribution hub for pornographic content involving children. My re-nomination is explicitly under a very different rationale. causa sui (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't be surprised if this could be sourced properly. It is a 'known' internet phenomenon. However, while there is no deadline, we can't leave it awaiting improvement forever. It has clearly been written about (see the references and links sections), but no indication of coverage in Reliable Sources. SamBC(talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yikes, the first thing this article needs is to be rewritten for neutrality. Sentences such as "whose moderator was often too preoccupied to approve messages on a regular basis" are definitely not written in an encyclopedic style. This needs a massive MASSIVE rewrite, throwing out everything that's in the article. You'd pretty much have to restart the article entirely from scratch if it's kept. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I'm looking at it right now to see if there's anything quick I can do to it right now and it looks like it's going to be a chore. I'm not overly familiar with this group- is there anyone else out there more familiar with the site that can do most of the edits? I don't want to delete anything important. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
I did a big rewrite but I'm a little unsure of it since I'm not overly familiar with this particular erotica newsgroup. There was so much content here that was unencyclopedic or wasn't in neutral tone that I'm a little antsy about potentially having taken out something that needed to be left in. Feel free to hack apart my editing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
It looks much more reasonable now though it still definitely needs cites. At least the original research is gone. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hopefully this will make deciding a little easier since there isn't as much OR in the article. Since I'm at work when I do most of my wiki edits I can't really look for cites or evidence of notability, but I wanted to help where I could. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep This AfD does show how Wikipedia standards change. When the article was originally created in 2003, few people would have questioned the notability of alt.sex.stories (though they might have questioned it on other grounds) and the article itself would have been considered quite good. However (apart from some expansion up to 2006) the article didn't change much but Wikipedia standards have - so while it might have been OK in 2003, an essay with only primary sources (some of which will still be good for content, but not for notability) is now OR. However, as the nominator has acknowledged, User:Tokyogirl79 has done a good job on removing the OR aspects - apart from the lack of reliable sources, of which however the standard GBooks search apparently produces quite a few. For instance, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And there will be far more out there, even excluding ones which are primarily about United States v. Baker and give it only a brief mention - alt.sex.stories was one of the most known (well, notorious) Usenet newsgroups of the 1990s. PWilkinson (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a famous newsgroup. Needs some improvement, but there seem to be references with which to do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 25 October 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Capellán (left-handed pitcher)

edit
AfDs for this article:
José Capellán (left-handed pitcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. No longer affiliated with team. Alex (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See 40-man roster for info on baseball rosters. They have 25 guys active most of the year, the other guys are basically kept in reserve in the minors. Spanneraol (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable now, which is the test to be applied. Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkin De La Rosa

edit
Wilkin De La Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Not affiliated with any teams. Alex (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2011 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Deal

edit
Ken Deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. "Being a coach of a future Hall of Famer at some point" is not mentioned in WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2011 (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. Certainly no consensus to delete, but the discussion shows that editorial discussion remains necessary to arrive at a consensus about how to continue with editing the article.  Sandstein  06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

edit
Corrections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article offers little information on a subject that is well covered in other articles such as Prison, Penology, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), Incarceration in the United States, etc. JeffJ (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That someone thinks a topic with umpteen books about it (click the "books" link above) should be a red link beggars belief. I can see an argument for merging this with penology, but something like that should be discussed on the talk page; given the current trend in terminology [11] it may be more appropriate to do a merge in the reverse direction. This nomination has a shade of WP:BATTLEGROUND given the repeated stripping of the sole reference [12] [13] [14] by the nominator. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many books on the subject, but the subject is also well covered, in great detail, in the other articles. This stub offers very little information and no references. There was one "reference" that started as just a Wikilink to Black's Law Dictionary, then expanded to list the 9th edition and page number. The reference was in support of the rather vague statement "Many US states have a Department of Corrections." but a check of the 9th edition found nothing supporting the statement. That this stub and its advocate(s) are unable to provide more in the way of citations/references speaks volumes. The other related articles offer much more in-depth information and are very well cited.
As for a merge to Corrections: The term is not global and typically only used in the US and parts of Canada. Even then, a majority of North American systems (if we include US counties) use the term Correctional, as in Correctional Services. Other parts of the world favour Prison, as in Prison Services. The word prison is also globally recognizable as referring to a penal system over such terms as corrections or correctional. Wikipedia itself redirects Correctional facility, Detention facility, Correctional center, Detention center, etc. to the global Prison. Terms like Corrections center and Corrections facility aren't even redirected, just red-linked.
A merge of this article to other articles would be redundant as the subject is already well covered.--JeffJ (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Department of Corrections" is given as example on the entry on correction. An the rest of the paragraph is based on that page as well. Deleting the reference three times, each time with a slightly different pretext is beyond disingenuousness. I won't waste my time to argue anything else with you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citation makes more sense now that it's been placed in the proper part of the article. I was unable to figure out that it refered to the Cut and paste job/Plagiarism in the earlier part of the paragraph as my copy of Black's lists the reference on page 424. A proper placing of the citation could have prevented this confusion and the deletes. --JeffJ (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referring back to the statement "given the current trend in terminology [15]": A Google book search brings up almost double the hits for "prison" as it does for "corrections" (all US authors), so it does not appear that there's any real trend, except maybe in the US.--JeffJ (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to penology, and perhaps add a sentence to the lead noting the use of the term corrections in the US (not sure if that is necessary) - this is an important topic, but an important topic worldwide - not just in the US and we should be careful not to show systemic bias. I agree that we don't need two broad "umbrella" articles on the same topic and penology is clearly superior to corrections for global generic usage.Ajbpearce (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression, now documented in the article on penology with a source (OED), is that it usually refers only to the academic discipline, and not to the practice. There's also for instance an Indian book called Penology And Correctional Administration, [16] a title which makes no sense if penology commonly includes practice as well. I think the term corrections is broader, as documented in its article. Definitions in social sciences are soft. I see no real harm in having a 3-paragraph article on corrections instead of a very confusing one that would result by trying to define penology as something that it apparently isn't commonly construed as. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of editing this page again, as we are rapidly approaching the point where the effort on the deletion discussion exceeds the effort in the actual articles - but if you feel the information on US practise is valuable then add it to the penology article in a section on the US. Your second point could apply equally to this article - both articles are stubs and very badly developed. If penology is not the accepted term globally (I have no expertise in this area) then there is need for a better alternative - I am sure that is not "corrections" which is wholly US centric. The sourcing thus far has been very poor on both articles, (OED and Blacks??!) and, to me, suggests recent editors are new too the topic area. If these articles are to be valuable they will need much better long term sourcing Ajbpearce (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another paragraph to the article from a new source which explains that "corrections" vs. "penology" was a philosophical, not just terminological issue, and that it also had real impact on the practice. So, I think it's reasonable to at least have the well-sourced contents of this article merged to other one if not simply kept separate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on the difference between "corrections" vs. "penology" is well taken, but does not mitigate the fact that the subject of corrections is still well covered in several other articles such as Prison, Recidivism, Rehabilitation (penology), Incarceration in the United States.--JeffJ (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The various articles take various approaches, but the common theme I find with the alternatives proposed by JeffJ is that they take longer to say less on the aspects covered by the Corrections article. Penology especially, taken as a whole, is rather insipid and should probably be merged/condensed/enlivened into this one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2011 (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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multitone Records

edit
Multitone Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This record label does not appear to be notable. In all of the sources provided, only one of them is reliable (being an article out of Billboard magazine). The other three are blogs. And overall, the article is not sourced and seems to be full of original research that is not supported by any of the sources. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Planetary ChaosTalk 00:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2011 (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 (A7, G11) by KillerChihuahua. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Sun Taekwondo

edit
Asian Sun Taekwondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Most of the article and subsequent references are about martial arts in general. Only references I can find relate to them sending students to the Amateur Athletic Union tournament. Borderline G11 in my opinion as well. Falcon8765 (TALK) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Falcon8765 (TALK) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources. Arguments have been raised against that view but it doesn't have sufficient support to affect the consensus. Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Rufer

edit
Caleb Rufer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has yet to make an appearance at a level deemed to confer notability by Wikipedia standards (per WP:NFOOTBALL) has only played semi-professional club, claim of youth international squad member in infobox, but no evidence he has played in an official match - but even if he did, youth internationals do not confer N. A couple of articles, but general sports journalism type stuff. ClubOranjeT 08:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ClubOranjeT 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nomination withdrawn - 3rd Liga is fully professional. --ClubOranjeT 08:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, at risk of looking a little silly, further investigation reveals that his 2 appearances were in fact for SV Wehen Wiesbaden II who play in the Regionalliga which is only a semi-pro league. I think the discussion should continue.--ClubOranjeT 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I added Template:Notability to the article, maybe someone can find something to prevent the deletion. Dusty777 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon further investigation, he doesn't fit WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPF or WP:GNG. Dusty777 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be about him as his father's son and notability is not inherited. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his father is mentioned in most of those articles, but they are still primarily about Caleb and his career. Jenks24 (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What career? he hasn't had one yet. A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability - every kid that trials with a big club gets that sort of coverage; it sells copy. More so in this case as they can sling it off the back of his father. This is a still footballer who has yet to actually achieve anything notable. And do you really want to claim this De Stentor article as significant coverage --ClubOranjeT 07:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What career? he hasn't had one yet." – that is your subjective opinion and one that I disagree with. "A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability" – the GNG would disagree with that, but it feels pointless to argue that against the well-meaning folks of WP:FOOTY when many of you seem to believe that no player who fails NFOOTY can pass GNG. As to him not doing anything notable – what he has done is receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sounds pretty notable to me. I fully admit that the De Stentor article is the weakest of the sources I presented, but it is still an article dedicated entirely to him and when the other articles are also taken into consideration, I think it amounts to significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • same argument as Phil Imray, the coverage asserts he hasn't made it as a footballer, hasn't made a significant contribution to the annals of history. the reason there are subject specific guidelines are to filter out the zones that get screeds of tabloid articles like sports and music. --ClubOranjeT 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gave a more detailed response at Phil Imray, but I'll still say this: I feel that you are trying to impose your own personal opinion of "a significant contribution to the annals of history" and not following Wikipedia's notability guideline. I also feel you have completely misunderstood the purpose of the SNGs – they are inclusive guidelines and not meeting one does not meet that the person is non-notable, but rather that GNG must be proven. Quoting from the top of WP:ATH: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways, e.g. the general notability guideline" (my bold). In addition, I will also note that the references given are not tabloids, they are major broadsheet newspapers. Jenks24 (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to his fathers page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are three principles at work here. First off, the GNG explicitly supercedes all subordinate notability criteria. If a subject passes the GNG, it doesn't matter a tinker's damn that he doesn't meet NFOOTY, any more than it wouldn't matter that he likely doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY, WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF or WP:PORNBIO either.

    Secondly, the nom makes a common mistake: that of presuming that "sports journalism" somehow by having to do with sports fails to satisfy WP:ROUTINE. This is not what the guideline actually says; ROUTINE debars casual mention of a subject in match previews, recaps, roster lists and the like as being indicative of notability. Articles which are, however, about the subject and which discuss the subject in "significant detail" are fine.

    Thirdly, the subject's merit - or lack thereof - is irrelevant. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" doesn't come with a "... unless he doesn't deserve it" or "... only if he makes a significant contribution to the annals of history" caveat.

    As such, that notability is not inherited is irrelevant here. We're not giving the subject a pass solely because he's related to someone more famous. We're doing so because he's received coverage in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. Whether such sources chose to cover him because of his father is a philosophical question outside of our scope, and outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ravenswing 13:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall species

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Redwall species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the last AFD, decision was made to renominate this list separately. The information is all in-universe and unsourced, and most of it is reliant on sub-articles that were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regretfully, because I put in quite a lot of work on the article back a couple years ago and while I was active tried to keep it free of plotcruft. But the article is essentially all plotcruft, and with little chance of finding reliable secondary sources on it being that it's a series for young teenagers and received very little critical attention. There was one interview with author Brian Jacques where he discussed the species he included, but I couldn't find it. Honestly I didn't look very hard for it, but at any rate one reliable source wouldn't justify this massive article anyhow and could be used to source the paragraph in the main Redwall article just as well. McJEFF (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unreferenced in-universe list composed exclusively of fancruft. With all regret but this is not what our project is for. --John (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In-universe fancruft based on OR with no sourcing provided, and little chance that any reliable sourcing exists. The list has no encyclopedic value in it's current state, and the prospects of it being improved to the point of being useful are vanishingly small. McJeff made a good point when he said that teen series such as this receive little independent critical assesment, and that's why independent sourcing is unlikely to be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (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.  Sandstein  06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InterNations

edit
InterNations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination requested by 82.81.125.200 (talk · contribs) [17]. Rationale is "I saw this article and it does not appear to be notable--just fluff to promote a start-up website". I am neutral — frankie (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, without reliable sources, advertisement, and doesn't meet WP:WEB. Alex discussion ★ 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I came to the article looking for information about this website, because I was curious after some people discussed participated in many InterNation events. I wouldn't want it to be deleted. It has alexa rank 10,760, so it is a high-traffic website. I agree there is much potential for improving the article, but I think it's much better and easier to improve existing articles, than to start over and over again all the time. Fuelbottle (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuelbottle, I appreciate your concern but, if we are to keep the article, we need to establish notability. Can you provide any sources which demonstrate the subject of the article to be notable? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragliding (police work)

edit
Paragliding (police work) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely indiscriminate list of every possible intersection between police work and paraglading. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and at WikiProject Aircraft within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - I have no idea what subject this article is supposed to be covering. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even more confused after seeing a redirect to the non-sensical Police face paragliding incidents. Not good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content from the article was merged - without attribution - to Police aircraft and the article in question moved. I've moved it back and undone the unattributed merge. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rioux (musician)

edit
Rioux (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source added in response to a BLPPROD was a link to the subject's website. I can't find coverage in reliable sources and the subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO from the information given. January (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) 00:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish constitutional referendums, 1968

edit
Irish constitutional referendums, 1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just gives the results of the referendums on Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland), which happened to be held on the same day. Similarly:

The results are already in the respective amendment articles; the separate referendums article adds nothing, except the dubious benefit of fitting into the "electionType, date" format of {{Irish elections}}. This benefit is not real IMO, for the following reasons:

  1. Where only one referendum was held on a date (e.g. Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland), there is no separate referendum article; just the amendment article, which does not transclude {{Irish elections}} but rather {{Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland}}. So the {{Irish elections}} does not even provide a way to traverse all the referendums, whereas {{Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland}} does and will do even without the deleted articles.
  2. Where a referendum plus an election, or two different elections, were on the same date, there is not a single article; so why should multiple referendums be treated together?
  3. Only the 1968 and 1992 groupings had a commonality of theme. The others were just held simultaneously for administrative convenience. A mention of this in each amendment article is already present. The 1992 commonality of theme is (correctly) discussed in Attorney General v. X rather than Irish constitutional referendums, November 1992. The 1968 commonality is lesser and IMO there would be less duplication in two articles than three.
  4. There is already a master list at Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland#List of referendums; sublists per date are superfluous.

Once the articles are deleted, {{Irish elections}} will need to change to exclude them. #Current format could change to either #Listing referendums or #See also referendums.

Current format

edit

Listing referendums

edit

If this option is chosen, it should probably replace {{Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland}} as well.

{{Navbox |name = Irish elections |title = {{flagicon|Ireland}} [[Elections in the Republic of Ireland|Elections and referendums in the Republic of Ireland]] |liststyle = text-align:left |bodyclass=hlist |below = <small>*Uncontested</small> |group1 = General elections |list1 = *[[Irish general election, 1918|1918]] *[[Irish elections, 1921|1921]]* *[[Irish general election, 1922|1922]] *[[Irish general election, 1923|1923]] *[[Irish general election, June 1927|1927 (Jun)]] *[[Irish general election, September 1927|1927 (Sep)]] *[[Irish general election, 1932|1932]] *[[Irish general election, 1933|1933]] *[[Irish general election, 1937|1937]] *[[Irish general election, 1938|1938]] *[[Irish general election, 1943|1943]] *[[Irish general election, 1944|1944]] *[[Irish general election, 1948|1948]] *[[Irish general election, 1951|1951]] *[[Irish general election, 1954|1954]] *[[Irish general election, 1957|1957]] *[[Irish general election, 1961|1961]] *[[Irish general election, 1965|1965]] *[[Irish general election, 1969|1969]] *[[Irish general election, 1973|1973]] *[[Irish general election, 1977|1977]] *[[Irish general election, 1981|1981]] *[[Irish general election, February 1982|1982 (Feb)]] *[[Irish general election, November 1982|1982 (Nov)]] *[[Irish general election, 1987|1987]] *[[Irish general election, 1989|1989]] *[[Irish general election, 1992|1992]] *[[Irish general election, 1997|1997]] *[[Irish general election, 2002|2002]] *[[Irish general election, 2007|2007]] *[[Irish general election, 2011|2011]] *''[[Next Irish general election|Next]]'' *[[List of Irish by-elections|By-elections]] |group2 = [[Irish presidential election|Presidential elections]] |list2 = *[[Irish presidential election, 1938|1938*]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1945|1945]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1952|1952*]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1959|1959]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1966|1966]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1973|1973]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1974|1974*]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1976|1976*]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1983|1983*]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1990|1990]] *[[Irish presidential election, 1997|1997]] *[[Irish presidential election, 2004|2004*]] * ''[[Irish presidential election, 2011|2011]]'' |group3 = referendums |list3 = {{Navbox|subgroup |group1 = Constitutional plebiscite |list1 = [[Constitution of Ireland#Enactment|1937]] |group2 = [[Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland|Constitutional amendments]] |list2 = *[[Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958 (Ireland)|1959]] *1968 ([[Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland)|3rd]], [[Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland)|4th]]) *[[Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1972 (May)]] *1972 (Dec: [[Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|4th]], [[Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|5th]]) *1979 ([[Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|6th]], [[Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|7th]]) *[[Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1983]] *[[Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1984]] *[[Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986 (Ireland)|1986]] *[[Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1987]] *[[Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1992 (Jun)]] *1992 (Nov: [[Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 (Ireland)|12th]], [[Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|13th]], [[Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|14th]]) *[[Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1995]] *[[Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1996]] *[[Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1997]] *1998 ([[Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|18th]], [[Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|19th]]) *[[Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|1999]] *2001 ([[Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|21st]], [[Twenty-third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|23rd]], [[Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland)|24th]]) *[[Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland)|2002 (Mar)]] *[[Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|2002 (Oct)]] *[[Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|2004]] *[[Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland)|2008]] *[[Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland|2009]] *''2011 ([[Twenty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2011 (Ireland)|29th]], [[Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2011 (Ireland)|30th]])'' }} |group4 = [[Elections in the European Union|European elections]] |list4 = *[[European Parliament election, 1979 (Ireland)|1979]] *[[European Parliament election, 1984 (Ireland)|1984]] *[[European Parliament election, 1989 (Ireland)|1989]] *[[European Parliament election, 1994 (Ireland)|1994]] *[[European Parliament election, 1999 (Ireland)|1999]] *[[European Parliament election, 2004 (Ireland)|2004]] *[[European Parliament election, 2009 (Ireland)|2009]] |group5 = [[Local government in the Republic of Ireland|Local elections]] |list5 = *[[Irish local elections, 1899|1899]] *[[Irish local elections, 1902|1902]] *[[Irish local elections, 1905|1905]] *[[Irish local elections, 1908|1908]] *[[Irish local elections, 1911|1911]] *[[Irish local elections, 1914|1914]] *[[Irish local elections, 1920|1920]] *[[Irish local elections, 1925|1925]] *[[Irish local elections, 1928|1928]] *[[Irish local elections, 1934|1934]] *[[Irish local elections, 1942|1942]] *[[Irish local elections, 1945|1945]] *[[Irish local elections, 1950|1950]] *[[Irish local elections, 1955|1955]] *[[Irish local elections, 1960|1960]] *[[Irish local elections, 1967|1967]] *[[Irish local elections, 1974|1974]] *[[Irish local elections, 1979|1979]] *[[Irish local elections, 1985|1985]] *[[Irish local elections, 1991|1991]] *[[Irish local elections, 1999|1999]] *[[Irish local elections, 2004|2004]] *[[Irish local elections, 2009|2009]] }}<!-- noinclude> [[:Category:Europe election year templates|Ireland]] [[:Category:Ireland politics and government templates|Elections]] [[:pl:Szablon:Wybory w Irlandii]] [[:ru:??????:?????? ? ????????]] </noinclude -->

See also referendums

edit

jnestorius(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all I think having the single page to cover multiple referendums on the same day is useful and complements the two individual articles on the separate amendments. Voters were presented with both questions in the same referendum, so I don't see a problem with an article on both. I also think the proposed alternatives to the election template are not great. Number 57 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels. The Bushranger One ping only 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical gospels

edit
Canonical gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N WP:OR This article is not notable and contains original research. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per WP:TNT. I cannot believe this was nominated - is this a joke? The subject is so obviously notable. There may well be OR (though I note there are almost 200 footnotes) but that's no reason to bring it here. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK< I see now the edit-warring that happened in April. It looked like then that the nominator was arguing for keeping the article, so I don't know why he has nominated it for deletion. The topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of the page, I am changing my vote on this one. The article is substantially the same as when it was first created by the nominator. And it is rather biased, and doesn't stick to the topic. I don't think there is any hope for the article in its present form, so I am voting to delete it and start over. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My AfD was not a joke. It was done in good faith. I agreed with John Carter on the talk page that, to turn something into a redirect, simply by fiat, is not the way we do things at Wikipedia. And, yes, even if it is turned into a delete or to something else, it would probably be useful to have some debate. An AFD, would allow broader discussion. Very good points have been made on both sides of the argument re deletion. I will keep an open mind and fully support the consensus position that comes out of the AfD discussion.
True, the subject is obviously notable and there are almost 200 footnotes but the issue of OR had to do with synthesis. Editors must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTH. The article is based largely upon Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, Trinity Press International, 2000. Since he is the leading scholar in this area and the conclusions are from his book, there is no original research. Others disagree.- Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is Development of the New Testament canon, which is linked as main article from Gospel#Canonical gospels. The topic is obviously notable, and even if none of the content is appropriate the term is still a valid redirect — frankie (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: While I appreciate your comments, you have already voted "delete" by nominating the article for deletion. Is this how you intended to vote all along? Because that looks like Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You can withdraw your nomination, but the discussion won't be eligible for Wikipedia:Speedy keep. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't a participant in the edit wars over this article, but I believe the background is that an editor on the other side of this dispute redirected the article as a means of deleting it without discussion. That was perceived by some other involved editors as an abuse of process. This AfD is an attempt to correct for that apparent abuse of process by seeking wider community involvement and a more thorough discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Ignocrates is correct. I carefully checked Wikipedia policy on AfD and learned that an AfD is not "a vote" but rather a way of reaching consensus. My nomination of this article is permitted as I was not trying to win "a vote" but rather end an edit war by opening the discussion to the wider Wikipedia community. Although I now believe that the article should be kept, I intend to keep an open mind as the discussion progresses. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way to end an edit war is easy: stop edit warring. As to consensus, we did have a consensus on this article being a redirect. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully checked WP:CON and according to Wikipedia policy "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". Actually, we were far from consensus on any of the issues. The proper way to remove an article is with an AfD. An AfD opens the discussion to the entire Wikipedia community. Note, consensus can never be used to overturn Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, consensus is very different than a "vote". Also, why are you editing anonymously rather than using your Wikipedia account? - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not all WP:CFORKs are bad by definition. I think the key question is whether Gospel#Canonical gospels merits a WP:SPINOFF to discuss the canonical gospels as a group in more detail than was done in the parent article. If the answer to that question is "yes" then the article should be retained. Content can always be improved by more sources, more NPOV, better writing, etc. The principal issue here seems to be the organization of the content in a hierarchy: Gospels --> Canonical Gospels --> Matthew/Mark/Luke/John individually. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except the "current article" is a redirect. That was the consensus position, and stood for about three months before this AFD. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You scared me with your statement that "the 'current article' is a redirect." I checked and the article was restored by me before the Afd and everything was done strictly according to Wikipedia policy. Now we should work toward a "consensus" which will end the edit warring. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may not have the facts in quite the right chronological order as far as who did what to whom. Any easy way to solve this problem is to continue to develop the content in Gospel#Canonical gospels. If that section becomes too large, a discussion about a spinoff can always be revisited. Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent suggestion. Then we might eventually get a spin-off article specifically about canonical gospels, unlike the present article, which is just a WP:CFORK of existing articles, and is better WP:DYNAMITED. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that is the issue. At this point there seems to be consensus that the article is "notable" and "OR" is not a problem. My position that the topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article. I suggest a quick trip to the reference section of your local library. Most references follow the same format as the article. Also reading Martin Hengel's,The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels will be helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present article does have WP:SYNTH and WP:POV issues, and that the topic is much better covered by existing articles like Gospel, Development of the New Testament canon, New Testament apocrypha, and Synoptic Gospels. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have always had trouble getting my mind round WP:SYNTH. Could you walk me through your concerns as if you were talking to a a dottering old man (which is not far from the truth). Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • TAGSPAM: I have noticed that an Anonymous editor has just spammed the article with many, many tags. This is not appropriate at an AfD. However main difficulty I have, is that although the spam conveys his great unhappiness with the article, it does not give of the particulars of his concerns nor any references to support his position. For example, one tag states the material on the Hebrew Gospel may stray from the topic of the article. Yet virtually all the "reliable sources" on the Canonical Gospels state the contrary. For example Martin Hengel in his work on the Canonical Gospels stresses the importance of the Hebrew Gospel from page 59 - 78. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's fairly obvious that the so-called "Hebrew Gospel" is not one of the 4 canonical gospels. It may have relevance for Development of the New Testament canon and perhaps Synoptic Gospels, but they are different (and already existing) articles. The discussion of the Gospel of Thomas etc. is also clearly off-topic, given the title of this article. I'm also concerned about the WP:SYNTH in the large table, which seems to be sourced largely to primary sources, to the unreliable website www.religioustolerance.org, and to footnotes that are simply bare assertions. The table also makes rather sweeping claims (e.g. regarding the "central theme of the Gospels"). All in all, this article seems to be a WP:POVFORK of existing articles, and I must say I see nothing here that's worth merging. -- 202.124.73.149 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article never says the "Hebrew Gospel" or the "Gospel of Thomas" were "canonical gospels". However, I am beginning to see your point. Your position is that an article on the Canonical Gospels should not talk about how they became "canonical" or how "they came to be written". That would make it a WP:POVFORK. Therefore the article should be deleted. However, the "reliable sources" and "Wikipedia policy" do not support your position. Books written on the Canonical gospels follow the format of the article. For example Martin Hengel's book on the "Canonical gospels" deals with the canonical issues presented by both the Gospel of Thomas (on pages 59-60) and the Hebrew gospel (on pages 68-76). In other words it is not that you are wrong, it is that your position is not supported by reliable sources. Can you find one book on the Canonical gospels that does not deal with the Hebrews gospel or the Gospel of Thomas? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we already had an article on how the gospels came to be written and became canonical, namely Development of the New Testament canon. Starting another article on that subject was a WP:CFORK, and doing so largely from Martin Hengel's point of view (ignoring all the other points of view) was a WP:POVFORK. -- 202.124.74.70 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we strongly disagree! StAnselm is correct when he says that the topic is "certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article". As the gospels are distinctive from other N.T literature WP:POVFORK is not an issue. During the edit war in April some of the article was merged into other articles but the "duplicated material" can be easily "de-merged". The article is "obviously notable" and with "almost 200 footnotes" to say "it is written only Martin Hengel's point of view ignoring all the other points of view" is more than a little unfair. You clearly have not read his book nor any other book an the Canonical gospels...And what "points of view" are missing???? In any event they can be added if the article is kept. Again if you support your POV with reliable sources you will win me over. I am really trying to keep an open mind. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You clearly have not read his book nor any other book an the Canonical gospels". Ret.Prof, that sort of statement is simply not acceptable here on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to re-iterate that I voted delete. Moreover, I would like to point out to the closing administrator that the previous consensus was to redirect, so that if no consensus is established here, that should be the default position. StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tone it down a notch. Sorry if I sounded harsh. If he has read the Hengel, then I will accept that - secondly we do not vote, we try to reach consensus. I do disagree with much of what you said but I did agree with your statement "The topic is certainly worthy of an article - not just a redirect to the Gospel article." It seems that you have changed your mind?? That is OK but please clarify. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is worthy of an article, but this article is unworthy of the topic. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong and the article should be deleted per my nomination. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that sounded harsh. Please see below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SYNTHESIS: There now seems to be "consensus" that the the article is "notable" and that "original research" is "not" a problem. The main concern has to do with Synthesis WP:SYNTH. I took the time to read it carefully to see if it provided valid grounds for removal by deletion or a redirect. Editors must not combine combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTH If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. However "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
  1. SYNTH is not an advocacy tool: If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.
  2. SYNTH is not summary: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. It's likely that none of the sources summarize exactly the same set of information. But if it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".
  3. SYNTH is not a catch-all: If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim.
  4. SYNTH is not just any synthesis. Synthesis original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. It is not to be used POV pushing tool. See WP:SYNTHNOT

To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what "new claim" was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. This has not yet been established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on observation, I believe there is an underlying problem which is more serious, but off-topic for an AfD. I suggest you give the process more time. A consensus will eventually emerge. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I got your message on my talk page. Now that you mention it "I do see". Sometimes I can be a little dim witted. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nomination: The best way to solve this problem is to continue to develop the content in Gospel#Canonical gospels. If that section becomes too large, a discussion about a spin off can always be revisited. And with that I do believe we have consensus - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the delete and redirect, but the spin-off already exists: it is Development of the New Testament canon. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a direct spin-off, strictly speaking, since it covers the entire canon. One could mention in an article on the canonical gospels how the four gospels came to be arranged together in different traditions. In the Western textual tradition, John precedes Luke and there is only one ascension - at the beginning of Acts. Whereas in the Alexandrian tradition, Luke precedes John and there are two ascensions - at the end of Luke and again at the beginning of Acts. This type of content fits better in Gospel#Canonical gospels or an eventual spin-off as an independent article. Ignocrates (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels per WP:TNT. Ignocrates (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore Redirect to Gospel#Canonical gospels per WP:TNT and various other reasons as above. I cannot really believe that this has come back from 6 months ago. This was one of a series of cut and paste articles creating a sort of alternative wiki presenting the theory that the real gospel was a lost Hebrew one preserved in fragments of Jerome, or something, I can't now remember all the hoary details. All I remember is it took a considerable amount of work by several editors to stop these articles proliferating. Wikipedia already has mainstream articles on mainstream topics like this - this was and should be a redirect to the mainstream article. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:DANNO The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Guide to Showing Off

edit
The British Guide to Showing Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim with any level of certainty that the article was being "actively edited by its author"? The article had not been touched for several minutes. It's more likely that my WP:AfD nomination prompted the editor to make further changes. I wouldn't say that adding two external links in 10 minutes qualifies as being "actively edited by its author". — Fly by Night (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4 minutes after its creation, you sent it to AFD. Was it your assumption that being untouched for 4 minutes meant it was being abandoned by the author? And while certainly the threat of deletion might have pushed the author, a template could have done the exact same thing and IS the preferred alternative to outright deletion.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is what any concerned editor could have done in less than 30 minutes through regular editing. This AFD was realy unneccessary and I would ask you please to consider a withdrawal, specially as a little research as was done by User:Arxiloxos, would show that the film has screened and has indeed received coverage. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, are you accusing this of being a fly-by-night nomination? :-) --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 00:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Herring (minor league pitcher)

edit
Bill Herring (minor league pitcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league figure. Fails WP:BASE/N. Article indicates nothing that would make him inherently notable. Alex (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional sports is on a whole other level than the vinyl flooring business. That's a preposterous remark. He led his team to championships and was General Manager of more than one club. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key question is: does this guy pass BASE/N or GNG? At a glance, it seems like the answer is no. The minor league stuff doesn't pass BASE/N, so he must pass GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Playing in the pre-expansion, unaffiliated PCL of the 1940s, when it was the top baseball league over the western 2/3 of the country is adequate for me. At a minimum, I found some coverage in a book written 50 years after his last game [24], which wouldn't be enough to strictly satisfy GNG, but an indication that there would have been more when he was active. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Rlendog - I have added some information to this page, including the person's full name and date of birth and his career beyond 1955, which includes time as a major league scout for the Mets. This may help those searching for sources on Herring. -Dewelar (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SPORTS. His slight association with the major league doesn't do enough to infer notability. Trusilver 04:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 16:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How. Alex (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's AfDs like this that make me pessimistic about the project in general. This individual fails WP:GNG. We should never have to look one step beyond this fact. If something fails general notability, then it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because we have no notable secondary sources for it. The second we start ignoring this very simple, very objective rule is the day that I can write an article about my cat and it's considered notable as long as I can get a majority number of sheep to say "it's notable". I certainly hope that the closing admin takes into account that despite the large number of keeps for this article, none of them give the slightest rationale for his notability other than some variation of "well, he just LOOKS notable to me" Trusilver 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the majors, you cant win 187 games in three years as a pitcher... Starters pitch only one out of every five days so 30 starts in a season is a good number in the majors.. minor league teams play less games... your top guys might get 20 starts a season. Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, three years might might have been a little hyperbolic, but we aren't talking today, we are talking 70 years ago. 30 starts a season is a good number now, what about more than half a century ago? I honestly don't have a clue. But regardless, saying that winning "x" number of games makes him notable is a ridiculous statement. Baseball players have other criteria for determining success. The subject's ERA, for example, which started out pretty damned good but slid down to mediocre by the end of his career. Trusilver 17:10, 26 October 2011 (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 (belongs on Wikiquote - similar to A5 deletion). Neutralitytalk 00:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Quotes on Hinduism

edit
Famous Quotes on Hinduism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article suitable for wikiquote. Not Here Redtigerxyz Talk 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 19 October 2011 (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. Blatant copyvio of http://kpepphotography.blogspot.com/2011/10/photographing-in-fog.html Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fog photography

edit
Fog photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be deleted as it is like a guide.See WP:NOTHOWTO.Wikipedia should not be used as a how to step by step guide.Therefore article should be deleted Dipankan001 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Indonesian Premier League results

edit
2011–12 Indonesian Premier League results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS, Wikipedia is not for "Long and sprawling lists of statistics", which is all this page can ever be, really. There were a couple of AfDs from a few years ago on similar topics, which had a consensus to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulham F.C. season 2007-08 matches and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08. Obviously consensus can change, however, especially over a period of several years, but it certainly hasn't become standard to create these types of articles for other leagues or clubs. Ultimately, I think articles like this inherently cannot meet the requirements of WP:NOTSTATS. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2011 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Snapp

edit
Red Snapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD, only stated reason for notability is managing three Class-D league teams to championships. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The LA 84 Foundation was established at the time of the 1984 Summer Olympics in LA. It is dedicated to preserving sports history. It operates one of the largest sports libraries in the world. Many of their older holdings are searchable from the web site. They have, for example, a complete run of "Sporting Life" that is web searchable - an excellent resource for pre-1920 baseball players. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After researching further, Snapp is a keeper. He won at least seven minor league pennants as a manager. He was known as the "king of the minors" in Texas in the 1920s and was profiled with feature articles at least three times by the leading baseball publication of the era, The Sporting News. He was so respected as a manager that, when he was hired, several teams renamed themselves the "Snappers" in his honor. I have expanded the article to incorporate information from these articles. Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the work Cbl62 performed. Alex (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where you found all those offline sources, but I do know it's enough of a snow keep for me to withdraw this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Spence

edit
Adam Spence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Fails WP:Athlete. Cited competitive achievements are entirely in amateur competitions. Falcadore (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article show 4 reference, however none go anywhere like ect: starlight.com.au . Anyway not notable and should be deleted. Ray-Rays 21:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - there are a few Targa rallies for which winning would be presumed to infer notability; the ones here aren't among those, and he hasn't even won any - just first in class. His remaining career isn't especially notable either. Let us know when he makes it to the WRC or V8 Supercar. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 26 October 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Miller

edit
Ash Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Fails WP:Athlete by a long way. And probably WP:COI too. Falcadore (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hasn't achieved the required notability yet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in addition to being a conflict of interest, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - his auto racing career is a bunch of non-notable series that add up to...no notability. MX-5 club racing doesn't establish notability regardless of two championships. Winning the Clio Cup or the CUE One Hour Endurance Series championship might make him notable enough, but he hasn't as far as I can tell, so, nothing there. Now - ironically, given this is primarily about his auto-racing career - it's the winning of four Australian National Irish Dance championships that comes closest to establishing notability. In fact, if the rest of the article was in decent shape and focused on his dancing career instead of his racing career, I'd be tempted to say weak keep based on that (a form of WP:BIAS fighting?), but given that it isn't, I can't. If he becomes a notable professional dancer, or moves up to, say, V8 Supercars in auto racing, we can give him an article then, but right now the very best I can do is reccomend some WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:28, 26 October 2011 (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. G4 recreation of an article previously deleted at AFD and the concerns at the previous AFD have not been addressed. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Lewis (actor)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sharon Lewis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, she is presumed notable under WP:ENT. However, there are no reliable third-party sources in the article and I am unable to locate any. No topic is notable without reliable third-party sources. SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2011 (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. Peridon (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top CashBack

edit
Top CashBack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website/company. I can't find any sources that aren't either press releases or do more than mention the company in passing (like in a list of "Some common cashback sites are A, B, and Top Cashback). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (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 the plan is to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the plan

edit
What is the plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable call for action. This is a violation of Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Activist and the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a description of a new movement, the Occupy Wall Street being one of the activities of the plan. Aleichem (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of the Former Yugoslavia

edit
Economy of the Former Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newbie article creator confirmed in their removal of PROD that they don't understand the meaning of WP:OR, but that doesn't make it any less of a policy. Certainly the topic of economic histories of former Yugoslav republics as such exists in some form in the real world, but no reliable source I ever heard of pretends that their disparate paths since 1991 can be summarily ignored by treating them as a single economic entity. Whatever salvageable content exists in this infobox can fit into e.g. a section of Former Yugoslavia#Economy without being such an overt WP:SYNTH problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article creator said this in explaining the removal of prod: "[...] I complied the economic data by myself mainly by merging the former Republics' finances giving us a representative idea." However, that's precisely what WP:SYNTH forbids, unless this kind of synthesis was also made by a reliable source. GregorB (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creepers (novel)

edit
Creepers (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2011 (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. Article creator requested deletion by CSD G7. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors Prescriptions Australia

edit
Doctors Prescriptions Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABLITY - zero gnews hits, only one ghit that's not on their website, and that's nothing of substance. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zou Yitian

edit
Zou Yitian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT : As he also participated in the Dota 2 The International (with EHOME) and placed 2nd, this could be based on the arguments going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: featured in a documentary by cctv5 [40] Redefining history (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once again ask do you have any connection to these players that may cause a conflict of interest? Ridernyc (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the argument is going on here, they might delete the pages first until the argument is over. that's why i've saved copies of the wikicodes to post them again when the argument is over." -- Does he really think that will work; that he won't get some form of disciplinary action for such behavior? DarthBotto talk•cont 07:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By argument i mean the argument on notability of esports players, dont get me wrong. Redefining history (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're getting things wrong here: if this AfD decides that this person is not notable, then that will not change if some WikiProject would suddenly decide that professional e-sports players are notable. A project can propose something like that, but I sincerely doubt that it would fly. Any recreation of an article deleted after an AfD can be speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G4) and an editor who does this knowing that it is against the rules is almost certain to get blocked from editing. --Crusio (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shinkarev

edit
Ivan Shinkarev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is this ip's only edit on the project. Looks like the meatpupets are coming out. Ridernyc (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here [42]. Ridernyc (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable enough to be included in russian wikipedia, then why not in the english wikipedia? [44] Redefining history (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria. Once again stop grasping st straws. we care about one thing substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's it stop it with all this other stuff. Just give us sources. You now have an entire team of people helping and we still have not seen one source that establishes notability. You just need to face the reality that these people are not notable. Ridernyc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if you look that article on Wikipedia.ru is 3 days old. This has hit the point of being just a silly waste of time. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Toft-Andersen

edit
Jacob Toft-Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT : As he also participated in the Dota 2 The International (with MeetYourMakers) and placed 4th, this could be based on the arguments going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Lim

edit
Benedict Lim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sheng

edit
Wu Sheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a 30 second interview is far from significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm going to go ahead and bring this up here. Do you have any connection to these players or any other possible conflict of interest? Ridernyc (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, i have no connections to the players itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. (I don't think a singular TV interview is enough. If there's some sort of subsection in the notability guidelines that says that a single TV appearance is enough for notability, I would change my mind though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. If gaming non-blogs (media companies) are considered gaming blogs. Like pchome.net, sgamer.com and 178.com. Well, I have nothing to say. Note: pchone.net doesnt even focus on games. However, if otherwise, I have tons of sources from these websites, and maybe more. Redefining history (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Improper venue, it appears the nominator wants to deleted the redirect at Mary Creek British COlumbia but instead tagged the article for deletion. No justification for deleting the renamed article has been advanced. (non-admin closure) Monty845 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Creek British COlumbia

edit
Mary Creek British COlumbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page title is spelled wrong Touch Of Light (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There probably needs to be a separate discussion on whether people like this should be included in WP:ATHLETE, but there is a clear consensus in those comments that did reference policy that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer)

edit
Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to already cover it under the "Generally acceptable standards" criteria 1. Criteria 2 is for more specific sports, but I don't think it's necessary for a more specific section in this case. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure you would have trouble getting consensus for your stance there. There is already a conversation on this topic here [48] and as you can see there is little to no support for an exception to the GNG for Professional Gamers. Not saying there should or shouldn't be, just pointing out that at this time there is no consensus for inclusion of these articles. As I pointed out in other places, if this person is truly notable show me some reliable sources. It should not be that hard or require debate. Ridernyc (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exception to the GNG appears to already have consensus established: WP:ATHLETE general criteria #1. If you believe that criteria is incorrect or misleading, then you could certainly make a case as such. But as I read it, it refers to major international professional competitions. I guess the question then is, was the tournament major and international? It was certainly international; the name of the competition was "The International". I think it was major as well. It was held at the world's largest games event, Gamescom, which has over 275,000 visitors. It was also hosted by Valve Corporation, arguably one of the biggest names in online gaming. By all accounts it fits the established consensus. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your interpretation and you are welcome to it, but there a clear consensus that not all international competition satisfies WP:Athlete. In this neither the sport, the leagues, the teams, the competitions.... get substantial independent coverage. Basically WP:Athlete says notability is inherited in a sport or competition, in this case the sport and competition is marginally notable at best. Again I encourage you to start a conversation at the various notability guidelines if you feel this way, but at this time I do not see any guidelines or consensus that covers professional gamers. Ridernyc (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT related discussions as these players also participated in Dota 2 The International. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Toft-Andersen (Maelk from MeetYourMakers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zou Yitian (820 from EHOME). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I'm all for making some cyberathlete changes to that guideline, but that's the future. As to whether the tournament is notable, I'm not sure. Is it recurring, or a one-off? Why don't we have an article on it? I think for that exemption to apply, we'd have to be talking about something highly visible. After all, the example the guideline uses is the Olympics. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament will be recurring, and it is mentioned in the article Dota 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have an exemption if it can only be applied to the Olympics? It would have just said "And the olympics is notable" if that is how it was meant to be applied. We don't have an article because wikipedia is incomplete, but the tournament is certainly notable and there is nothing stopping its creation at some point in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I made a case for above, it does appear to have been a major event, held at the largest annual video games event in the world. Well under 100,000 attend the Super Bowl. Not everyone coming to Gamescom attended for this tournament, but we don't have a breakdown of attendees based on what events at they attended at Gamescom. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question asked there was "Is there a criteria for professional esports players?" The answer is obviously no, there is not specific criteria for pro esports players. However, there is general criteria for athletes in general, which I feel does apply. No need to form a specific consensus if a general consensus can already be applied. That's why we have the criteria in WP:ATHLETE. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer was no use the GNG. Funny how you ignore that. Consensus is use the GNG, it has been said repeatedly in multiple places. Ridernyc (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, using the GNG is one option. The other option which I think should be applied here is to use WP:ATHLETE, since he is an athlete. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think he is not a real athlete, and this event is not comparable to the olympics. If he can't pass GNG, it should be a delete... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, The World Cyber Games is the third most viewed international event after the olympics and the fifa world cup. I would like to point out that The International has a much higher prize pool and will be recurring, thus it should be a notable event. Redefining history (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this account cos i dont have another wikipedia account. whats the problem with that? Redefining history (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting other people to come and take part in these debates[52] is against policy [53]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inviting them to give me ideas, not to join this debate. Redefining history (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
people can look at what you said there and make up their own minds. At this point I don't see an meat puppetry though, just putting the not ice out there. Ridernyc (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the argument of all the people in the centralized discussions about it. Playing video games is not widely considered a sport. That some people call it a sport is not debated, but that does not make it one. If the person is notable then find GNG coverage of it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this energy being wasted here. Seriously I would love to see an inclusion criteria for these people hammered out. Maybe if people would actually work on that instead of arguing endlessly in AFD debates we might get somewhere. As it is right now these articles will be deleted all this hot air will blow away and down the road we will have the same exact argument in another AFD. If you want these types of articles be proactive about it, change consensus, write guidelines, improve the project. Ridernyc (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change the consensus here, but consensus appears to be that consensus is determined at AFD. So here we go. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion isn't related to this one...nowhere in it do you mention professional e-gamers. What he/she is suggesting is that someone work to create a SNG for gaming that the community agrees to accept. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to help draft a proposal. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DJSasso: The reason I made that discussion was because of this AFD. As you said there, consensus should be formed at AFD and then described in an SNG after it has been formed. Or am I misunderstanding you? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of...what I was saying is that guidelines aren't best practices. We don't write them and then try and get people to follow them. They are created by the observation of long term practice on the wiki and then the guidelines are adjusted to fit. However, trying to claim e-sports is an actual sport will take an actual discussion on a talk page. A user already brought it up in a couple of places and that isn't likely to get consensus. Which is why its been suggested you try and create a SNG for e-sports. And then propose it as a proposed guideline and then people will comment/!vote on whether or not they think it fits and is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, ..." The fact that you don't consider esports an actual sport is no more important than that, as a supporter of American football, I don't consider soccer an actual sport. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are from that standpoint, but not in the way you are describing them. Secondly from the article sport "Some non-physical activities, such as board games and card games are sometimes referred to as sports, but a sport is generally recognised as being based in physical athleticism." Your argument is a strawman....football is clearly a sport. Playing a video game however doesn't fit the definition. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you two either carry on on your talk pages or move the debate to WP:Athlete this really has little to do with this AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since he is trying to claim it meets WP:ATHLETE it has everything to do with this afd. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ATHLETE. We really need to get a grip on what competitions are the "highest level" for this type of activity, but the $1M prize makes me think that the competition listed isn't trivial. I don't think I'd stretch this to things like the world Monopoly tournament and the like, but computer gaming competitions are probably at least as significant as many sports (certainly than say, Ultimate Frisbee Worlds which I think would qualify under WP:ATHLETE though it shouldn't IMO). And beyond participating, he was on the winning team. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the talk page at WP:Athlete disagrees with you. Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reading it, I'd say it's less than clear actually. In any case, I think the notion that top members of their sport/activity/whatever are worth having articles on seems applicable even if it doesn't fall under WP:ATHLETE. Eh, I can live with it either way. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words even though this person totally fails the GNG you like it so we should keep it. Ridernyc (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not perfect in all cases. That's part of the reason we have SNGs. --Odie5533 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in other words I find we have a policy for X and I find Y closely corresponds to X and so is a reasonable basis for a precedent. I honestly don't care a bit about professional gaming. But given that it is a professional competitive activity, I'd argue we should probably treat it as we do similar things (including chess players, bowlers and race car drivers). Hobit (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply. I don't see the coverage needed to get past GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply here. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute laws like the policies are. If you win a million dollars in a video game competition, then you are notable. Don't be anti-nerd and pro-jock here. Its a competition just like any game where people go outside and run around with a ball all day. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not an issue of being jock-vs-nerd or the like. It is simply the fact that esport competitions do not have a body of reliable sources to build on yet. We know there are esports and various leagues and that it is a competition, but the day-to-day, event-to-event coverage that exists for other competitions just is not there to make people that participate within it, including top-tier winnings, automatically notable. Perhaps this will change in a few years, I can't say, but it would be crystal-balling it to assume that would be the case in arguing for retention. There's no reason articles on players can be placed into appropriate list articles since again the competition is notable, but individual articles for the competition winners is overkill. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus, where did anyone say this was a jock/nerd thing? Or is that maybe something you just made up? I'm going to say that my multiple Star Wars userboxes probably at least negates your theory that those who vote delete are "anti-nerd". I have argued that playing video games is not a real sport and shouldn't be looked at through the prism of WP:ATHLETE. And, BTW, just winning a million buck doesn't make you notable. Significant coverage via reliable sources does. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excluding esports is just elitist. CallawayRox (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 7 of the 9 sources on the page discuss "player transactions," for lack of a better term, and cannot be used to establish notability. The other 2 sources consist of the results of a gamer forum fan poll (also not useful for notability) and of a tournament in which his team placed...his name isn't even mentioned. At best this could be userified to one of the supporters until such time as firm notability standards for "e-sports" are established (if consensus deems such standards are necessary beyond WP:GNG), or it could go to WP:DRV at that time. On a side note, I don't think that some of the folks here appreciate that it is far more common to use GNG to rescue an article from AfD for not meeting the SNG than it is the other way around. And that neither guideline guarantees notability.  Cjmclark (Contact) 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not "anti-nerd" to point out the glaringly obvious fact that WP:ATHLETE is a completely inappropriate criterion to use here, with no more application than WP:PROF, WP:BAND, WP:PORNBIO or any other notability criteria having zero to do with playing video games. That being said, the subject fails the GNG. Are there any reliable sources any proponent wishes to cite, not counting gaming blogs? It is well-established policy that it is not enough - as DreamFocus disingenuously suggests - to claim that surely there must be reliable sources out there, somewhere, maybe, possibly, hopefully. Such sources must be produced. They have not been. Ravenswing 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I should give you interviews instead? Here you go [http://prodota.ru/ru/news/artstyleinterviewasus [56] [57]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The start of the interviews offers features of the player, which are secondary sources. Redefining history (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are articles about him under google news. [58] [59] [60] Redefining history (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More from google news [61] [62] [63] [64] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This time from russian sources. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] Redefining history (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To The Bushranger's comments, interviews can be primary or secondary sources, depending on the circumstances. [71] No one figured out a way to reword that guideline page. Dream Focus 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS does not apply. See consensus on the article talk page regarding whether or not it should be included. Beyond that, most of the cited sources reference the player in passing. One or two sources appear to be blogs or on social networks. Some sources appear to interviews, which do not work for WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Flannery (Golfer)

edit
Tim Flannery (Golfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collegiate golfer who is in his freshman year. Fails Golf nobility guidelines. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Gunter

edit
Jen Gunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable physician. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a vanity article by proxy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but for "According to PeerIndex she was as of mid-2011 the third most influential female physician active in social media by way of Twitter." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the two ahead of her don't have articles on wp; should we create those or delete hers? there are no other options.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are no articles about #1 or #2 doesn't have anything to do with whether the article about #3 fulfils notability or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. i was kidding. usually i don't take the risk, but the phrase "third most influential" overwhelmed my sense of proportion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's not clear to me that "third most influential..." is sufficient to overcome notability requirements, it simply took it out of the "slam-dunk non-notable" category for me. You'll note that I haven't !voted one way or the other as of yet -- I'm waiting to see what other arguments are presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete—nothing third party at all except that lancet article. i would love to be proved wrong, though, because i think third ought to be the notability cutoff for "most influential X by way of twitter," except the sources are just too stubborn to support it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Lancet citation alone regarding physicians' usage of social media suffices for notability; PeerIndex only provides a ranking within the more exclusive ambit of female physicians actively engaged in social media. kencf0618 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure having three paragraphs about one's use of Twitter in the Lancet counts as sufficient to meet our notability guidelines, if that is what you are arguing. As for the claim that Gunter is the "third most influential", that is entirely original research inserted into the article by you. The source identifies the list as "a list of female docs who are currently engaged in social media", making no claim of influence nor suggesting that the order of the list is a ranking of any quality. In fact, the author suggests that "measuring social influence is problematic, however, and social influence changes over time". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment—i don't think that your correction accurately reflected what the source says. i fixed it to include the fact that west himself says explicitly that he's not asserting anything about notability with his list. as west says, I ceased collecting names upon reaching 25 total. My goal wasn’t to list all female docs who use social media, but to provide a sufficient number of examples for others to follow, and enough to indicate that female docs using social media are indeed not a rare species. The order shown provides no indication of either personal or professional qualification.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one item in Lancet (in a very informally written technology column) does not satisfy WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by MULTIPLE independent sources. (And I can't believe that people are seriously arguing for her notability based on the fact that she uses Twitter a lot!) Nothing else of significance appears in the citations at the article, or in a search of Google News. Her citations at Google Scholar are a little more impressive but IMO not enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs to Leave

edit
Songs to Leave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability or that the album has ever charted. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:18, 19 October 2011 (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 NASCAR on Fox. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digger (character)

edit
Digger (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not separately notable, tagged for all sorts of stuff for years because nobody cares. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boogedy, Boogedy, Boogedy, let's Delete this boys! No notability to speak of, no sources about the character (indeed, no real character) to speak of. A redirect makes sense, in theory - but it wouldn't bother me if we forgot that bit. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Boyfriend (Sweetbox song)

edit
Boyfriend (Sweetbox song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern: No indication of passing WP:NSONG. Eeekster (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted - WP:CSD A3. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Mpati

edit
Lex Mpati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No context - author must post with context beforehand and use the preview button or sandbox for tests or edits. Touch Of Light (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2011 (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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Spartans

edit
Dublin Spartans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod with no explanation why it was contested. Non-notable amateur team with no independent sources. GB fan 12:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amateur clubs are not usually notable enough for inclusion, and there are no sources at all to indicate that this is for any reason an exception. WP:SPORT does not explicitly cover criteria for amateur clubs, but the general character of the standards indicated there is way beyond this club. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Baseball Ireland the top level of baseball in Ireland? If so this team may be notable... I'm unsure on this one. Spanneraol (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the highest level of a game in a country is low-level amateur clubs then there are likely to be no notable clubs in that game in that country. A club is notable if it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not if it doesn't but it comes as close to doing so as all the other clubs in the same country. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:19, 19 October 2011 (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. May well be notable, but as pointed out this is still an unreferenced BLP at this point. If anyone would like to resurrect it with sources, please ask me and I will userfy. Black Kite (t) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jad Shwery

edit
Jad Shwery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sufficient RS coverage to reflect the notability of this album musician. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability and lack of non-primary sources since June 2011.Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. He's not an album but a musician. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. My mistake (I had AfD'd both his album article and his bio). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give this a weak keep as is (and apparently I started it, which I'd forgotten!). He's a fairly significant pop figure in the Arab world, although it looked in 2006-08 as if his career might be bigger than it's turned out to be. It's certainly a promotional mess as it stands. If anyone else is interested in improving the article, he remains far better known by the Francophone spellling of his family name, "Choueiri". Robertissimo (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tx. That spelling also turns up a paucity of RS coverage -- zero under gnews.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? We have zero RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - part of the problem here is that the RS are in Arabic. When one does a gsearch using جاد هانى شويرى there are ca. 291K hits. There are certainaly mirrors of our article among them, but there are also hits that look like RS, although being unable to read or speak Arabic I'm a bit lost. I note that there is also an article on ar:WP. Going there I see a more succinct article than the English one has got into. (Declaration: my only interest in this article has been to protect it from BLP offences.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you put that search in quotes, you get 47 ghits (15, not counting mirrors), and zero gnews hits, and I don't see any RS coverage that meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an extreemly legnthy article, I can tell alot of time and effort has been poured into it, it has one downfall, references, none are listed, and I know uncitated material quickly dissappears, if anyone can add citations please do so. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this bio of a living person, with zero RS references, in your view "fully meets GNG". It strikes me that given its lack of any RS sources whatsoever, which you admit is the case, the opposite conclusion is the appropriate one. The length of the article is not a factor at all, adn that seems to be all that you focus on. That is not a criterion for meeting GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the "one downfall" you mentioned is really the only thing the matters when deciding if an article should be deleted, right?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public order crime case law in the United States

edit
Public order crime case law in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is original research, pure and simple. There is such a theory as public order crime, which should have an article, but the selection of cases for this article (which is really just a collection of case blurbs) turns on nothing but the subjective judgment of its authors. Savidan 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. EEng (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2011 (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FaultTrack

edit
FaultTrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party coverage and certainly does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 19 October 2011 (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. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fegan

edit
Dan Fegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and little notability asserted. Refs are blogs or blogalikes.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prominent sports agent who has been involved with several internationally known athletes. A couple sources are here: [72], [73]. The article has been edited by many users, not just Taprahamian. (But even if Taprahamian had been the sole editor, that wouldn't automatically require deletion). Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. landed two top-five picks in the last two years and has the only chinese player still in the nba. over twenty years experience. stephon marbury alleges fegan has earned over 300 million from NBA clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.114.64 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor man's R

edit
Poor man's R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on car customisation. This is train-spotter stuff that belongs on Wikia, not in a global encyclopaedia Biker Biker (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • marginal. but leaning delete There are enough web hits out there to establish that the terms are used, but I doubt it would be possible to summon up reliable sources about the performance claims (for starters). Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 19 October 2011 (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 all. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Hungary 2006

edit
K-1 Hungary 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating:

another useless series of non notable qualifying events with no coverage to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC) LibStar (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oktaeraejin Park

edit
Oktaeraejin Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable poet, referenced only to his own blog, prodded for this and zero google hits, which was declined by the creator saying there are 40K ghits for his Korean name, however so far as I can tell the relevant ones appear to be all blogs/forums etc Jac16888 Talk 09:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Park Ok-tae-rae-jin. Yunshui (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC) redirect page deleted[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Park Ok-tae-rae-jin deleted twice. 1st external link seems to only contain works, nothing about him; 2nd leads with bio (golden background); includes International Cultural Award (Japan Cultural Institute, 2011), unknown significance. No timeframe for other awards, but multiple published novels and collections of poetry - excerpts and samples fill the rest of the page. Dru of Id (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound like sufficient coverage for GNG to me. Thank you for checking. Changing !vote to Delete, above. Yunshui (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_October_19&oldid=1142636747"