Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 July	4 July >

Guide to deletion

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 no consensus. Firstly, percentages for the !vote counters: 59% in favor of keep, 66% keep/merge, 41% delete/merge, 34% delete, 6% merge. Clearly there are no indications of consensus on the !votes except maybe a weak consensus in the keep/merge category that the content itself should be kept. When I look at the arguments, I see a major misconception in the delete rationales. I gave a reading of WP:INDISCRIMINATE over just to be sure my understanding is correct. There are three criteria: 1) Summary only descriptions of works. After giving the article a read, I see quite an extensive and comprehensive article that far exceeds a summary of a fiction book or event including critical receiption, controversies, rankings, and impact. 2) Lyrics, clearly not. 3) Excessive listings of statistics. Although there is a particular section (Rankings) involving statistics, this is not the focus of the article or even an overwhelming section of it. So I'm inclined to throw out arguments of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Then after reading comments about WP:V, I was absolutely stumped by the rationales. Some rationales included, paraphrasing of course, "The subject is not listed in the sources." If that were a requirement of WP:V, we could never split an article. When an article becomes increasingly longer and requires more time to load on slower connections, it becomes neccessary to split it into it's own article. The subject is still where it was forked from. I don't think the need of a literal split is neccessary. This article is clearly forked from the main President Obama article and would be inappropriate for a merge unless significantly trimmed. That discussions, what should be trimmed or if it should be merged, can take place outside of this venue.

I don't find a significantly more impressive rationale from the keep side either. WP:SPLIT seems to fly in the face of WP:GNG which requires the subject of the article to have significant coverage in multiple sources. Again, when considering this as a fork of the President Obama article, these concerns should be put to rest. The sources discuss President Obama's use of Twitter and it's impact on the presidency and campaign. Finally, after reading both of the "Main pages" listed directly below, I see a consensus developing that ...on Twitter articles are going to be inappropriate overall. However, there is enough opposition to this blanket approach that I see no overridding reason to close this as delete. The result of this discussion is no consensus with the option to hold a discussion or RFC to merge. v/r - T P 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama on Twitter

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

This is not an article about @BarackObama it is an article about Barack Obama on Twitter and as such it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article. Articles on the use of a social medium by a public figure are simply not notable, some extraordinary "accounts" are however not in this case nor in the case of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The problem is that this topic does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article and is not of any educational value. The sources are for Barack Obama not for his account and are therefore SYNTHESIS, therefore we must delete this entry and merge a small amount of useful information to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians or Barack Obama possibly Barack Obama#Cultural and political image if not we will have to accept an unending series of Barack Obama on Facebook, on Instagram, on Pinterist, on Google +, Barack Obama's email account, Barack Obama's home in Chicago and other useless TRIVIA. Lastly the relevant policy in this case what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you did not link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it has nothing to do with this article.
As for the rest, it is the same throwing of mere assertions and flawed reasoning and seeing what sticks that I have come to expect at AfD, eg invoking notability without substantiation, a slippery slope argument, and the hair-splitting invention of calling the use of sources about BO's use of Twitter SYNTH because they are not specifically about the account itself. Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a proper separate article, per WP:SPLIT, as including it in the main Barack Obama article would be undue weight. Furthermore, this is one of the few on Twitter accounts that I support existing, because Obama has specifically used Twitter extensively throughout his presidency and in specific venues, such as the Twitter Town Hall. There has been extensive coverage on his Twitter use and how it relates to his presidency and his current presidential campaign, shown in sources like this. If Barack Obama received an extensive amount of coverage on his usage of other venues, then those might be notable enough to make, but right now, that is just an OTHERSTUFF argument, because there is no indication that Obama significantly uses any other venue besides Twitter. Furthermore,, the comments about email and his home are red herrings. This article is not indiscriminate or violate NOT, because of the extensive specific coverage of Obama's Twitter account. Silver seren^C 00:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While 99.6% of the YOURNAMEHERE on Twitter articles are inherently unencyclopedic, there are sufficient independent published sources showing for this to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like I ought to be fair and say that maybe there are better arguments for deletion than have been presented, they are so bad. SYNTH is about the use of sources, not the choice of them. If the sources were not about the Twitter account, someone could have removed them because they did not verify the statements they were supposed to cite.Not only does no one seem to understand SYNTH, but people misunderstand it in different ways. Wee! Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barack Obama is being cited in reliable sources his account @BarackObama is not, this article is about Barack Obama and is therefore a duplicate that is unsourced.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe delete rationale seems to be a non-justification. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." That rightly says the article is not -necessarily- suitable, it doesn't come close to saying it's unsuitable. I forget the formal logic terminology for this.150.35.244.246 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if renaming a title to a broader scope - Seriously, this is a collaboration of recorded events from news. However, we are dealing with the President of the United States, not Kutcher or Bieber... or Gaga. If people want this article kept, then this article is too much on Twitter. He might have used YouTube and other stuff. Therefore, renaming this article to "Barack Obama on <something internet-related>" and then broadening scope of this article would help, right? Otherwise, why else keeping Obama-Twitter is nothing is to be done? Without general analysis or thought on Twitter account as a whole, this is a delete for me if Twitter account stays a Twitter account. Regardless of notability of this topic, the whole article speaks something that is against standards of general needs of a reader. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how the elected leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth uses a popular social networking site to gather support and influence people to his causes, seems quite encyclopedic to me. Dream Focus 07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political campaigning and advertising is potentially notable (e.g. Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Daisy (advertisement)). If something involves the president of the USA and is widely covered in the media over a long period of time, it's probably notable. Political controversies regularly come to AfD and are quite often kept. Merging to Barack Obama is impossible due to its length, and it can therefore stand as a spinout. Changing it to "Barack Obama use of social media" might be possible, but I don't believe it's necessary. The internet and Twitter are now important media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Must I say something? Surely, this topic is notable, right? However, writing an article about this topic.... is not very easy, but I guess it has some merit about the next campaign. Still, this article is just retelling of all events, and no significant viewpoints have been yet made about Obama-Twitter. ~~I crossed out "delete" in favor of Neutral because of WP:SIZE, unfortunately, which speaks about loading issues.~~ WP:MOS comes in play, as well, because even a special issue of the Time magazine can do better than this article, no offense. --George Ho (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: because this is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTCASE study, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is not a simple issue of notability. The fact is, for any major public figure, you're going to be able to assemble sources about a myriad of subtopics. Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable. The problem is, you're starting to get into topic selections that resemble the biases of the editor. You're starting to confuse "the subject" with "what the subject is notable for". It's your standard WP:CONTENTFORK problem where people can write multiple articles that are all basically about the same thing, which would make the encyclopedia even more unmanageable than it already is. (Note: this is a copy-and-paste comment that I also posted at the similar Bieber article. Everything I said there applies equally here.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm not the only one. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of social media by political candidates and campaigns has been the target of lots and lots of coverage. If ever these articles are notable it is here. Obama campaign on Facebook could even probably be a notable article, though it might make more sense to have one article Obama campaign on social media.174.234.0.33 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting ridiculous. Here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Someone stop the madness!--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of this topic is not relevant to the execution of this article, no matter how the quality of this article is. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is not a reason. My point above is that all those sources focus rather heavily on Obama's Twitter activity as a subject unto itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet even the next or the next 10 revisions are current revisions. Even changes become current versions. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia should not contain everything found somewhere on the Internet. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator ("...it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article.") and suggest that he start a WP:Merge discussion per our policies. Also suggest he/she take the time to read WP:Synthesis, as using a source mainly about one thing in an article on something else is both not synthesis and not against GNG sourcing policy. The Steve 05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula. You can disagree with the ones about celebrities, but this one involves the president of the United States, who uses it for campaigning purposes. Statυs (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula and The Steve. To me, passess WP:GNG and agree it's too long to merge. Vertium (talk to me) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was about to nom this myself as yet another indiscriminate amalgamation of trivial doings. This is especially true for the P{resident of the US, who receives heaps of media coverage as to what is on the White House dinner table at Thanksgiving, what the family gives each other at XMas, Michelle Obama's arms, the president swatting a fly during an interview, etc... There is nothing especially notable about an official White House twitter feed, any more than there is about a White House telephone or White House e-mail account. This is far more of a slam dunk than the Kutcher or Bieber articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common sense; we're a serious encyclopedia and this is a trivial topic. Encyclopediacy trumps any notability guideline. This is simply inappropriate for an academic resource, our reliability aside. The rise of new media has blurred the line between notability and sheer triviality—closing admin must not fail to distinguish this line. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I worry that 'common' sense has lead to some misunderstanding of both Wikipedia's policies and Wikipedia itself. While I certainly have no objections to the development of articles on academic subjects, the fact that you see either Wikipedia or academia being limited in a way that doesn't include this article is, I think, a mistake. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Twitter is a communication medium. Presidents use communications mediums. With very rare exceptions like FDR's Fireside chats, we shouldn't make articles on how Presidents use communications mediums. Do you see an article like Theodore Roosevelt on the telephone or Ronald Reagan on television? Of course not. This isn't an encyclopedic topic at all. Now, if this were merged into, say, Barack Obama on social media this might be okay. But this isn't an encyclopedic topic. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Ronald Reagan filmography, a clearly notable topic? Silver seren^C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assume wrong; I mean his television appearances as a president and politician, which is clearly not a notable topic as a whole. Individual ones may be if they are speeches or addresses to the nation, but it isn't a notable topic as a whole. Toa Nidhiki05 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY. Not everything that is reported in reliable sources is appropriate for its own article, especially things that are trivial and commonplace like this. Some of the more notable material on this subject should be presented in articles like Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but not in a standalone article on the subject. -Scottywong | talk _ 21:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, all of you need to stop using INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't apply. Second, Obama's use of Twitter is very clearly not trivial, when it had had a significant impact on his presidency and his current campaign and he's used it as such (in Twitter Town Halls and the like). An article covering this usage is appropriate and easy to source. Silver seren^C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a really good source for that. Silver seren^C 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, INDISCRIMINATE can apply; it is commonly interpreted that the 3 examples listed in the guideline are just that: examples of where INDISCRIMINATE applies. Whether or not it should apply here is for the closer of this debate to decide. Also, if it has had a significant impact on his presidency and current campaign, then why not consider merging it to Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sigh. Except that INDISCRIMINATE is a policy specifically against things that are only verifiable, ie things with not enough sources per the GNG. This is explicitly stated in the intro: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It goes on to list some examples, like plot summaries, which by their nature, will only have one primary source, the work itself. Meeting the GNG with third-party, independent, reliable sources means that INDISCRIMINATE will not apply. The Steve 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Steve, and anyone else who opposes use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this debate: WP:GNG addresses INDISCRIMINATE by saying that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Also, to be considered verifiable, it must have reliable sources, which are defined here as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, while the specific examples INDISCRIMINATE gives typically do not have this, they are therefore not verifiable and not representative of all articles that INDISCRIMINATE applies to. The quote you gave from the intro to INDISCRIMINATE, that verifiability "does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", shows this. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see that you are correct. This policy was changed this February after a few years to emphasize the indiscriminate part. I also see that INDISCRIMINATE basically boils down to "Consensus can override the notability shown by sources if enough editors decide they don't like it". It does kind of hint that maybe you should have a reason to exclude valid sources (using announcements, databases, and minor news as examples), but its doesn't come out and say it. In that case, carry on. It does seem strange to have WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as this roundabout way of saying the same thing though. The Steve 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not personally "like" nor do I "dislike" neither this article nor its subjects - I simply do not think "X on Twitter" articles should be included in this encyclopedia. The lead at WP:Notability states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." As an indiscriminate collection of information, "X on Twitter" articles should be excluded by the latter, violating both WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DIARY: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are." Now this I understand. Keep excessively detailed stuff out of articles in general. Stick to summary and overview style. However, for it to be a deletion reason, every single statement in the article must be trivial. Every one. You are saying that nothing in the article is significant in the least. "Obama has used Twitter to promote legislation and support for his policies" - insignificant. "During his 2008 campaign he spent a lot of time as the world's most followed account" - No impact whatsoever on his campaign. "Obama has at various times held public forums in which he fielded questions posted on Twitter." - way too much detail, should not be included in his biography. "violating" WP:NOTDIARY is not a deletion reason, it is a reason to trim content. The significance of a given statement is its presence in supporting sources, not on my or your opinion. Sure, the vast majority of tweets are like a diary, and should certainly be left out. Not all of them, and not ones with WP:SIGCOV The Steve 07:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. If you get rid of all the content that violates WP:NOT and you realize you only have 3 sentences left, and that's all you can say about the topic that has encyclopedic value, then you delete the article and use those 3 sentences in other articles, as suggested in my comments above. -Scottywong | spout _ 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment That sounds like an excellent reason to redirect and merge, but a very poor one to delete. And my point exactly, thank you. NOTDIARY shouldn't be used for deletion, only for trimming or merging. The Steve 04:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I created this page, I did so just because I saw other Foo on Twitter pages. With so many articles related to the President, I feel that this adds content that is informative and would otherwise be left uncoordinated and only obtainable by numerous Google searches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anybody wants this article kept, why not userfication then? That way, let's wait for future upcomings that can generally signify this topic. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I vote to keep this article. I agree with Silver Seren and Anarchangel! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References establish notability. Everyking (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in case someone ends up counting. While WP:IINFO is a very nice general statement, until someone explains how it applies to this article right here in any more depth than 'because I say so', I don't see the motivation to vote any other way. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as perhaps the prime example of the use of social media in modern politics, and a legitimate subtopic of Presidency of Barack Obama. As I said on another of these AFDs, most people's use of Twitter isn't particularly notable, but Obama's is. Robofish (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the love of God delete. I think all the "<Add persons name here> on Twitter" should be deleted. There is no encyclopedic value in any of these articles. Keeping these articles could lead to a mass of other non notable articles. I can see the slide of Wikipedia's dominance approaching. Even the Roman Empire couldn't last forever. It's a shame. Wikipedia was so useful too, now its just a fan site.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Innocuous Comment I'm amused by, firstly, the fact that you see Wikipedia as 'dominant' in the way of the Roman Empire, and secondly that you think deleting articles like this saves Wikipedia from sliding into obscurity. Whether they're appropriate or not, whatever, but implying they'd be the end of our empire is a new one. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, when a club or in this case an "encyclopedia" lets just anyone into the party, then the quality of the party begins to diminish and people stop going. If Wikipedia is going to have an article on the most mundane topics, people will stop using the site over time. Historical fact.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree completely, if we get overwhelemed with 20 articles for every bio we already have and include Miley Cirus on Pinterest, Hillary Clinton on Intsagram, George Clooney on Facebook, Prince William on Flickr, Kobe Bryant on Google+, Tom Brady on Twitter, Peyton Manning on Tumbler, Madonna on Friendster, Eminem on MySpace, I bet we could find some sources for them all but really they would be forks of their actual notable owner and notability is just not inherited no matter how badly you want their to be a social media article on someone's account it will overun this project with so much crap we wont be able to afford the server space and our searches would be overun with bullshit that people could not find the vital information that they seek.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assure you, the only thing overrunning vital information may be run-on sentences. This is perhaps an argument for a WP:EXCULSIVECLUB policy, but it still doesn't quite justify deleting this article. Hopefully any concerned take note of that. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no relevance in this article whatsoever Jeremyeyork (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the other ones (Kutcher and Bieber). It was proposed that this is a legitimate split because the Obama article would be overwhelmed, but I don't think that that's valid: that article could probably be trimmed to accommodate whatever is salvageable. Article should be deleted and a summary of the relevant information (a paragraph, maybe) placed in the main article. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly expand to include other social media. His Google+ account, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment@Scjessey, what policy is that based on? Why should it be kept? COMMONSENSE is that a twitter feed is just not notable independent of its notable owner if the account is only famous because of its creator and notability is not inherited, there is a real lack of policy or guideline opinions amoung the keepists here and that is alarming as this is not a vote of whether we like Obama or not. "Note that obviously a short section on Twitter (and similar social media) in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate." was part of the closing administrators rationale for delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter and it could easily be so here as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a policy that says 'Wikipedia has articles on things'? That seems like the 'commonsense' justification to me. The policy based opinions, if you want to call them that, which support keep is that the policies and bare assertions you cite as reasons to delete do not apply. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Justification - The use of Twitter (and social media in general) by Obama, his campaign, and his staff has been reported quite extensively in the mainstream media, as supported by the numerous references in the article. For this reason, it easily passes the General Notability Guidelines and, therefore, is perfectly acceptable as an article. I think the article is little more than useless trivia, but if it passes WP:GNG more power to it. Another issue is that there simply isn't space in Barack Obama for it, partly because the "parent" article is written in summary style and is designed to have a considerable number of daughter/sub articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the deletion argument is "simply not notable" which means IDONTLIKEIT, "IT" in this case meaning not Twitter or Obama, but articles of this sort. No actual reason for not liking it can be or has been giving, beyond the feeling that in some way this is not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. That's a feeling, a disLIKE, not a logical argument. Why a twitter feed should be not notable in any case has not been demonstrated, or even argued--nor can it be--any means of communication is at least potentially notable in at least some particular instance. I can give reason why i am personally more interested in Obama's books or speeches than his twitter feeds, but it has nothing to do with notability. I am not interested in some forms of writing or speaking, and I may choose to ignore them, but that's not do to any intrinsic properties about what is important in the world. Personally, I have no interest whatever in what use Obama or anyone else may make of Twitter, nor in what anyone may say about it, but still it is the case that RSs have published significant amounts about it, and therefore it meets our basic policy. It isn't Indiscriminate, for that would mean we'd have an article on [everyone] on Twitter, which nobody here is proposing--nor is an exceptionally important an commented on person like Obama a lead onto a slippery slope towards that. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under NPOV, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. See WP:NPOVFACT. Also see WP:NOTPAPER: "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic." The biographical article Barack Obama on Twitter is not a written account of Barack Obama's life. Moreover the keeps have failed to establish that Barack Obama on Twitter is a significant part of a written account of Barack Obama's life. In fact, Twitter is such an insignificant event in the life of Barack Obama that a search of the Barack Obama article for "twitter" reveals that twitter is not even mentioned in the Barack Obama biography. That raises WP:NOTDIARY issues, which notes that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. The keeps have not established consensus to condense Barack Obama on Twitter to a brief summary in the Barack Obama main article as required before creating an article spinout. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is part of treating biographical facts on Barack Obama in one biographical article. Rather, the creation of Barack Obama on Twitter bypassed the NPOV required article spinout consensus process. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is a natural part of growth for the Barack Obama main article as required by WP:NOTPAPER. Barack Obama on Twitter should be deleted per NPOV and NOT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suddenly, real arguments. To be honest, and this is perhaps a small detail, I don't think the article under consideration would come as a biographical split from Barack Obama, it seems more closely associated with 'Campaign 2008', 'Presidency/Public Image', 'campaign 2012'. Also, I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest, considering the subject of the article and our prescripts about article size, that anything we haven't or haven't already included in the main biographical article is necessarily insufficiently notable per NOTDIARY. For example, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is at present a smallish paragraph and a proc in the infobox; in comparison to that, I wouldn't assume the Barack Obama article enumerates all the notable things which relate to the man. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouled we have a section on his e-mail usage? Or a list of people who's hand he has shaken? That and these tweets is giving UNDUE WEIGHT and is part of what wikipedia is WP:NOT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has his email usage been covered extensively in reliable sources like his Twitter usage has? Furthermore, has it had a significant impact on his presidential campaign and presidency in the manner that his Twitter usage has? Silver seren^C 23:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is another example of non-sequitor LWC, you list two things which may or may not be worth an article, then simply claim that this article also shouldn't exist. Undue weight would apply better if you could show that the usage of twitter is actually so unimportant as to not be worth the given amount of prose, and even then, that's only really a justification to trim and, if the text somehow became incredibly short, merge to an article like 'campaign' or 'public image'. WP:NOT continues to fail to apply. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still reviewing this article but I do not see how it really relates to his life in a significant way, as opposed to the presidency and campaign and politics, where it seems more connected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no, rename, no WP:TNT, oh, something! Unlike the other celebrity "X on Twitter" articles, I think there is a kernel here that actually belongs, through perhaps not under this title, and the article as written really isn't it either. The sources are out there in abundance for an article under a title like Barack Obama's use of social medial in the 2008 Presidential campaign, that is both broader and at the same time narrower than this article. That's the notable core here, the way Obama used the internet and social media in a manner never seen before, and changed the game of campaigning for this generation, not the twitter account in isolation. That's the trick with this article, as written, it doesn't belong here, but Obama and social media does belong somewhere per the sources out there. Courcelles 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barack Obama Article. After looking at the Article and seeing all the references to using the account to promote his policies, I would say it warrants a Section but not a whole independent Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned above, Barack Obama is written in summary style because there is an enormous amount of material to work with. By necessity, the main Obama article has dozens of sub/daughter articles that are linked by means of a template (including this one). It just isn't at all practical to perform a merge. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: By "looked at the Article," I meant the Obama/Twitter Article under discussion. In any case, Barack Obama on social media sites if not even more generally Barack Obama on the Internet would be a more appropriate daughter Article, rather than singling out Twitter when his accounts on other sites are part of the same impact. Such a broader daughter Article could contain a Section about Twitter just as easily as the main Barack Obama Article could. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silver Seren's points. INeverCry 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the very few tweets which are supported by reliable sources that they were widely reported and commented on, and can be shown to have some sort of little-n notability: sustained importance. Importantly, these very few should be merged into the narrative of particularly important events. --Lexein (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This source is not discussing individual tweets, but the impact Obama's Twitter use had on his 2008 campaign and during the 4 years of his presidency. Silver seren^C 04:52, 12 July 2012 (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 Woody Allen#Soon-Yi Previn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soon-Yi Previn

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

Delete - Although Mrs. Allen/Miss Previn's slightly unorthodox marriage is quite interesting and has attracted some media attention, she displays absolutely no notability in her own right and is known only for this WP:ONEEVENT which, in itself, is merely WP:TABLOID fodder. Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED because she is the daughter of André Previn and Mia Farrow and the stepdaughter/wife of Woody Allen. There are also a plethora of WP:BLP privacy and WP:BLP1E concerns for this fairly innocuous housewife. SplashScreen (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that the drama surrounding Soon-Yi is also documented here, here and here, making a merge quite useless. SplashScreen (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Ms. Previn was never Allen's stepchild. Allen did not adopt the children Farrow had before she met Allen. Allen never married Farrow. --Javaweb (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Delete - She is the housewife spouse of Allen and they have been together for over 20 years. Already mentioned in Allen's bio, as is how she met Allen. --Javaweb (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Delete - absolutely no notability other than through her marriage, which is not transferable. Vertium (talk to me) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect to Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn. While I don't agree that major figures in a major artist's life are notable unless they have artistic influence over the artists (e.g. a muse of some sort), she is notable in Woody Allen's life due to the coverage their marriage has received. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the decision is that she has no notability outside of her marriage to Allen, it might be best to redirect her name to Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that a redirect is merited. And it's better to redirect to her husband rather than her adoptive mother (or adoptive father, for that matter). jnestorius^(talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn. While she's certainly worth a redirect, she doesn't merit her own article at this time, if ever. Everything I find about her talks about her as an extension of her husband, with Allen taking main and central focus. She has no notability outside of her marriage to Woody Allen.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redeirect to Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn. As the coverage is primarily about the marriage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - she was, for a year or two, one of the most fanmous people in New York City. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major figures in the life of major creative artists are notable. Not all the sources are mere gossip. I've usually !voted to delete most things that could be called tabloid fodder, but she is of more permanent significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 10 July 2012 (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 06:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westernesste

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

I am also nominating the following related page because the notability of each seems to depend largely on the other:

Article about a religious organisation of uncertain size and no claimed notability. A Google search reveals nothing except the organisation's own website and those of its offshoots. No third party sources. The linked BLP at Maerian Morris may also be a candidate for discussion; there is only one reliable source there and it is unclear whether Morris is explicitly mentioned there (no page number is given) or whether the reference is simply to the better known Church of All Worlds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. For the orignisation, there is simply no coverage in reliable sources. For Maerian Morris, there is no substantia coverage although I found some mention of her confirming her as editor of Green Egg, but these are mentions and not coverage. AS for the list of references in the Morris article, all save one would not pass muster as a reliable source. The Adler book is a reliable source, but it appears to be only there to reference to the Church of All Worlds. A later edition is previewable in Google Books. Given that the cited edition is the one from 1987, and Morris, according to the article, did not become an editor of Green egg until 1993, it's highly unlikely there is any mention of Morris in that edition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard_Parham

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

Lacks both notability and reliable sources. Parham was only a national master for a few years, which is far below the standard for a player's inclusion on strength alone. (GM level or higher) Furthermore, he didn't "invent" any opening. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?! is a silly move that has been around for a long time and has been called a bunch of various names throughout the years. The "Matrix System" also sounds iffy as something new, and the idea that it's the only notation that maintains information when rotated 180 degrees is nonsense considering standard algebraic notation does the same thing! On a related note guys, ChessDrum is a REALLY bad source. There has been so much factually inaccurate nonsense and falsehoods I have had to delete from other articles which referenced it as a source. Unfortunately, they are also the only source about him. Delete ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator: Where does it say he "invented" the opening? Since the article's inception April 5, 2009, it states "famous for advocating a chess opening known as the Parham Attack." And the Parham Attack article states "The opening is named after American chess master Bernard Parham, the first master-level player known to have advocated it." Nothing is stated about "inventing" the opening – I'm wondering where you're coming up with "he didn't 'invent' any opening" as a claim you seem to think needs refutation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No one did claim that he invented the opening. I was just noting that Parham didn't do so, since if he did, that would certainly make him notable enough for an article. However, on top of this, the opening should not be called the "Parham Attack" at all. I started a topic on this on the relevant Talk Page, but there is not a single credible source (opening book, reputable publication or website) for 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 being called the "Parham Attack" beside the aforementioned awful chessdrum website. In the few opening resources that this variation appears in, it's referred to as "The Patzer Opening". Nowhere, besides that geocities-esque site, have I found anyone calling it the "Parham Attack".ChessPlayerLev (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand this... You concede that no one claimed Parham "invented" the 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 opening. Yet you remind us he "didn't 'invent'" the opening. And you do that, because "if he did 'invent'" the opening, then that would be cause for notability. (Is that right? If it is, then it presumes that chess openings are "invented", outside of being named after someone, or someone advocating, an opening. Can you find for me one WP article on a chess opening that says a party "invented" it? Otherwise, I'm confused with the word play here. [Wouldn't you say Parham researched and tested lines in the opening? He played it in tourneys. What does "invention" mean to you beyond exploration, analysis, identification, testing, practice? Are you creating your own term here? And if you are, why are you applying your own term, of unknown definition, on someone for evaluation here, as an argument against? How does that make sense?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; "invent" is a word rarely used. (Hence my quotes) Usually, it's "named", instead. Regardless, it shouldn't even be named after Parham to begin with! (See the discussion above) It's as ridiculous as me playing 1. a4 and then having a single, uncredible personal blog call it "Lev's Opening". ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got me totally confused, and I give up! (You appear to be saying you really didn't meant "invent", but "named". But then you're claiming what? The opening is not, or cannot, be named after him, because why? Because the opening has had other names too? What is your 1.a4 argument? If you researched, analyzed, played, and advocated an opening beginning 1.a4, there is every chance in the world it might end up with your name on it. [Why not?] What your argument is -- I have no idea.) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

And BTW, another argument in the nomination, "The 'Matrix System' ... the idea that it's the only notation that maintains information when rotated 180 degrees is nonsense considering standard algebraic notation does the same thing!" seems to be based on your misunderstanding. The "maintains information when rotated 180 degrees" refers to the piece symbols, which look the same rightside-up as upside-down, compared to regular piece symbols, like in a diagram (normal chess fonts). That's what they meant, you seem to have totally misconstrued that, in your argument and criticism against. (Since the criticism is erroneous, how about striking it from your nom case?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have looked into what "The Matrix System" is. It's basically the EXACT same as algebraic notation except with a different symbol for the pieces. No one uses this. Also, I didn't "misconstrue" anything; when you say "maintain information when rotated 180 degrees", you're referring to the BOARD. For instance, descriptive notation does NOT maintain information when the board is rotated 180 degrees (the moves recorded in this manner would no longer make sense), while algebraic notation does. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misconstrued what they meant. They meant the piece symbols, compared to normal chess font piece symbols, like I *already wrote*. The argument in your nom is therefore erroneous and misleading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What they meant" and what was actually written are two entirely separate things. The line in Parham's article (since deleted by me) stated this;

One of the advantages of the Matrix Notation is that it is rotatable 180 degrees without any loss of orientation information.

"Orientation information", by standard chess usage, refers to the board, not the symmetry of the piece symbols. Once again, while this is something that DN (descriptive notation) does not maintain, it is very much true for the standard AN (algebraic notation).ChessPlayerLev (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the way it was stated in the article, was incorrect. But, that is easily changed/corrected. (What is wrong and erroneous, is your argument in the nomination, since it was based on the incorrect way it was stated in the article. A nomination and !votes should be based on fact, if facts are known. I was telling you here that facts are known, and you should strike the erroneous argument you made in the nom. Get it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect, see below). The "matrix notation" is hardly used, and I cannot see that inventing it confers any notability. Regarding 2.Qh5?! (a move that is usually used in the hope of getting a Scholar's Mate), I am not to worried about whether Parham actually invented it. Many openings are named after players that didn't invent the move, but who analyzed the line. Therefore, I have no problems with the article Parham Attack being at its current title. However, notability is not inherited, and I think the Parham Attack is more notable than its namesake, largely because of Hikaru Nakamura (the USA's top player) trying it on a few occasions. Regarding playing strength, his FIDE rating card shows a FIDE rating of 1859 (which is lower than even my rating), but it has probably been higher before. His USCF rating is currently 2001, but has been at 2200+ before (so the "master" title claim is at least true.) Generally, players are notable at the GM level (around 2500), sometimes players with lower ratings are considered notable as well on other merits. Parham falls a bit short of that mark. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Sjakkalle. (But does anyone object if I take the info from the currently remaining three sentences in the article, and include that info at Parham Attack, in the form of a footnote?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the relevant information about Parham, him being a master who advocated 2.Qh5, is already in the Parham Attack article, but I think we could add the birth date or year as well. "Matrix notation" however is not relevant for that article, and I'm doubtful that it is notable enough to merit coverage anywhere in Wikipedia. (I have no objection to a redirect to Parham Attack if that could be a useful pointer.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, makes sense. (Not enough for a footnote then, so I limited to putting birth in the infobox here. If not okay let me know, will revert.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Matrix notation" is in the link, and it is not notable. The ChessDrum article says that in 1995 he got a letter from the US Chess Federation permitting it in tournaments. It is not an accepted form of chess notation by the USCF, nor by FIDE, and probably no chess organization in the world. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. (I restored & corrected on the basis that reason given during the removal was based on incorrect reading of the source. But I agree there is diff reason for ultimate removal.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 12:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Schemers

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

This article about a band asserts local notability, but there is no evidence of it. I could not find any good sources to support this article. Cmprince (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Raindogs, per WP:BAND. The latter has apparently been tagged as unsourced for the past 5 years, and appears to be the more notable so sourced content should probably be added there first. If enough info in reliable sources arises regarding The Schemers, the section can always be spun out at a later date. Some sources I found are [6][7][8]. -- Trevj (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage includes Boston Globe, The Herald News, and all these from The Providence Journal: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Highbeam throws up more coverage from the Boston Globe. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Michels

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

I declined a speedy on this because of the length of time this has been up. I cannot see that it passes WP:BIO, but would prefer a consensus on this. Peridon (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject of the article, Tim Michels received significant press coverage in 2004 when he was the Republican nominee for Senate. Wikipedia is intended to be a historic encyclopedia, not merely a website for current events. Just because Michels is not receiving significant coverage now, because he is not currently a candidate does not mean that the article does not pass WP:BIO. The article does clearly pass WP:BIO because the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, even though that coverage may not be recent.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that he had been a candidate - however being a candidate doesn't confer notability. If it did, we'd be over-run with everyone from the GOP down to the Deadwood Gulch Pioneers Party (three members, one candidate). Peridon (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that being a candidate in and of itself does not confer notability, but Michels was a major party nominee for U.S. Senate in a race that had been considered to be close enough that the NRSC spent a significant amount in support of Michels. The national media did cover Michel's campaign in 2004. I don't think the Deadwood Gulch Pioneers Party got any serious media coverage. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, at the present time the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. It can be argued that the subject may pass WP:GNG due to the senatorial election, however at present time the article needs expansion with those references to support a keep based on that. However, if the article is not to stand, a sub-section can be made and the verified content can be merged into United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004#Major candidates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my opinion to Merge & Redirect, although the subject passes WP:GNG, the subject still fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the notability is related to the election, so the subject more appropriately falls under WP:1E, and the subject does not pass WP:EFFECT. Therefore it is my present opinion that the verified content by moved to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004#Major candidates, and a redirect be left in its place. If the subject becomes notable for other things other than the election, than the article can always be WP:SPLIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep passes GNG - multiple independent reliable sources per Tdl1060. He was a major party candidate for one of the largest political positions in the United States. Plenty of other reliable sources exist and improvement / cleanup wanted is not reason to delete. First page search engine results includes old speculation that he might run for governor of the state from the most influential talk radio station in the state [15]. Royal broil 03:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more citations. There are dozens of hits while searching for him at the New York Times to pick a major newspaper. I'm insulted to see a speedy nomination by an experienced politically-minded administrator on one of the big names in state politics from only 8 years ago. Michels was all over the news! It's easy to find independent sources for him. And I'm not a fan and I dislike politics. Royal broil 04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citations that were added improved the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Remember that while an article being here for a WP:LONGTIME is not necessarily a reason to keep - however, at the same time, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004

Just to remind folks of the major criterion for notability for politicians

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Although Royalbroil and I have both tried to beef up the sourcing of this article, there really is not that much out there about this guy. I had to wade through several pages of search results to find two hits of relevance. Let's face it - this article can be summarized in two short sentences: 1) Tim Michels is a businesmann. 2) He ran for the Senate in 2004 and lost. He's never done another notable thing in his life worth writing about. (Being one of several vice-presidents at a family-run corporation is not notable.)

I suggest we merge this article with United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004, as much of the content in it is a duplicate of what is in that article. Mesconsing (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep minimal biographical detail was obtained from election publicity. It passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN, and as Bushranger points out notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Pontificator (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability in all cases, when the case is being the unelected candidate of a major party in a two party system for a national level office, especially a national level office as selective and influential as the US Senate, it does indeed guarantee it, for it will always bring major press coverage and be of permanent historical interest. How anyone can have thought it a speedy passes my understanding--it is at the very least a plausible claim to importance or significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (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. Favonian (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harvey (baseball)

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

Minor league player with some minor awards and no lasting coverage to suggest notability – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable minor leaguer, who apparently did not live up to MLB expectations. based on current article sources, subject does not satisfy SNG notability standards of WP:BASE/N, and apparently not the general guidelines of WP:GNG, either. Coverage in reliable, independent sources cited in existing article vary from routine mentions to truly trivial listings in stats tables. Only substantial coverage occurs in blogs. Relatively close call under GNG, but not that close to merit the benefit of the doubt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Outside of being a first-round draft pick, there is nothing that really sets Harvey apart from scores of other minor league players with no wiki page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. First-rounder several years ago but never panned out. Unsuccessful conversion to pitcher last year. Still in minors. Note that there is another Ryan Harvey (also non-notable) who accounts for some of the web hits; the other Ryan Harvey pitched at Seton Hall and was just drafted. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:51, 10 July 2012 (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. Article is already moved to Banigocha. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banigucha

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

Unsourced, unverifiable geographic stub. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia seems to be the only source for the article. Find sources returns nothing. Possible hoax. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Comment: Not a hoax if used in Banigocha as User:Oakshade mentions below. I'm not an expert in the subject or the geographical importance/notability of the region. Not all places are notable by mere existence alone if they aren't at least an organized city or municipality. Because I don't know about the geopolitics of the region, I abstain. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 21:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Banigocha - Banigocha is a real village. [16] Indian place names commonly have multiple English language spellings and this is one of those cases. --Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Banigocha – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, and per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=gets kept, per Northamerica1000. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2012 (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#A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific

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

Rapper who doesn't appear to meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Sources cited are all subject's own promotional pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could qualify for Speedy Delete. PK T(alk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability. Hard to find significant reliable coverage. Possible COI since author seems to make an autobio. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 21:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not notable, fails wp:musicbio. GregJackP Boomer! 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:11, 4 July 2012 (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. No prejudice against recreation should he meet WP:ATHLETE in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Manquillo

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

Prod was contested by an IP who said "The player has a promising career; he has made his first-team début and is currently representing Spain at the under-19 European Championships as their starting right-back. Why delete a profile for a player who is on the cusp of making the big-time?" This player has indeed played - but not in a fully-professional league, so therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL - and he may be notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Most importantly, he fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe if he plays for the national under-19's team he'll be snapped up by a better club. It's a short enough article to be re-created if this happens. But, as it stands, he hasn't played in a fully professional league or in the senior national team, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think this is one of those prospects that are being talked about by many sources (A google search for "Javi Manquillo" seems to give a broad range of established newspapers and magazines covering the prospect which could be argued as grounds for notability along with an even larger number of non-reliable sources) but, as it stands, since player has not yet played for a fully professional league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL but there could be an argument in favor of the basic criteria of WP:ATHLETE. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 20:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. As already stated, this article fails WP:GNG. He has not played in a fully pro league, and a single cup appearance against a third division side is insufficient to confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On 21 December 2011, despite being a Juvenil A player, Javi made his first team debut, in a Copa del Rey match against Albacete Balompié, acting as a starter. Mega60 (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albacete Balompié do not play in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Manquillo was on the bench in La Liga games against Real Sociedad and Malaga last season. Pretty much every Real Madrid Castilla player has a page (I know they are Segunda now), but they weren't deleted. Also played as a starter for a La Liga team (regardless of opposition) in Copa del Rey and various friendlies. Also as mentioned a starter for Under-19's and has lots of media coverage. Why delete when it will just be made again in a few months? --82.32.214.23 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the bench or playing in friendlies is not enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL - neither is playing in one Cup game against a team not from a professional league. Other non-notable players having articles is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while the potential of being notable in the future is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Most importantly, this article fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it matters so much that this page doesn't exist, and I know that despite what anyone says you'll probably delete it anyway, but why should the opposition of the cup game matter? He was playing FOR a top five La Liga team, they are the ones who pay his wages, not Albacete. That has no reflection on his notability or talent whatsoever. --82.32.214.23 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one also believe that he seems talented and that his page will likely be re-created in a few months but this is how the wikipedia policies work and we can't have an article for a player that has not yet played a match in first or second division Spanish soccer. This is the criteria. There are many many players who play with Javi Manquillo side by side and are not deserving of an article of their own. Indeed, there seems to be a greater coverage about him than the others but unless this coverage is displayed in several (multiple) big-name-big-bucks-national-coverage newspapers and specialized magazines, the policies do not support his inclusion as an athlete either. I am positive that this article will make a comeback in a matter of months, but, as it stands today, according to the policies, it probably shouldn't be here yet. Best wishes to the player. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2012 (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. No prejudice against re-creating these articles as redirects. -Scottywong | gab _ 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asami Sato

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

Not notable enough for devoted articles and only verifiable information on any of the characters is their respective voice actors, the fact they are in the show, and brief descriptions of their character traits. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles as they are pretty much in the same exact situation (all characters of the same show).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "list of Legend of Korra characters" article. Seems like a viable option, though deletion is OK too. There's an Avatar Wiki where all this info and more is available. It's kind of trivial information for Wikipedia.--74.58.194.221 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles were made not too long ago and still need editing. Light2Shadow (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There is not enough reliably sourced material to write out-of-universe articles about all of these characters (see WP:GNG) - and I should know, having just rewritten the main article's "reception" section based on all the reasonably reliable reviews found through Google. Merging would not be appropriate because that would only concatenate the excessive plot summary and other WP:IN-U content that is better suited to fan wikis. At the current level of sourcing, covering the characters in the main article is entirely sufficient. That probably applies to Amon (The Legend of Korra) also. Sandstein 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The Legend of Korra#Characters Rather than nuking the pages I think we should redirect them for now as they are likely search terms, in any case the articles are not ready to be made yet as the sources are lacking I would wait for at least season 2 to end so more info can be generated about them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection isn't useful because with the "(The Legend of Korra)" suffix these titles are not likely search terms. Sandstein 19:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think in some cases those redirects may still be useful. If I type "pabu" into the search bar, the software predicts the ten most likely articles that start with those characters; at the moment, number nine on the list is Pabu (The Legend of Korra). This would still appear as a predicted search result if the page were a redirect to The Legend of Korra#Characters, but it wouldn't appear if the page was deleted. I think a search for "pabu" would also show The Legend of Korra#Characters higher in the search listings if there was a redirect from Pabu (The Legend of Korra) than it would if there was no such page. I don't think that this has been written down in any guideline though. If I remember correctly, search bar prediction is quite a recent feature; it might be that we need to update the guidelines with the implications it has for redirects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chief Lin Beifong (The Legend of Korra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has just been created, already with an Afd tag directing to this discussion. So for the record I hereby nominate that article for deletion too. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went WP:BOLD and redirected the pages prodded to The Legend of Korra#Characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Smart move. And the Beifong article I think was inadvertently added to this AfD. (Don't think somebody would make an article and nominate for deletion on the first revision. :P). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad that it worked well =), for reference the others that were created include: Chief Lin Beifong as well as Tenzin, and Rohan. Someone should keep an eye out for these redirects as well as new character articles that may pop up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The Legend of Korra#Characters per my comment above. (Now that I've commented, I may as well make it official.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:33, 11 July 2012 (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) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Adolphe

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

Unsourced (save for IMDB, but see below) for nearly five years. I've been unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this alleged actor under WP:GNG, nor have I seen yet a reliable source which documents his existence, there's a small chance that this is a hoax. Something interesting to note about the IMDB entry is that he's the only actor listed that IMDB can't tell you the names or number of episodes (of Echo Park) he's allegedly appeared in. I find that a wee bit suspicious.

The last name of this actor was changed a year ago in the infobox, doesn't match the title, possibly true, but without sources, how am I to know?

The Echo Park role, if it exists, doesn't appear to confer notability even if it could be more reliably verified.

Our own Wikipage (edited by the author of this article) lists the Alexander role as uncredited.

It appears that there might be a UK restaurant called "The Diner" associated the name, so I suppose it's not a complete fabrication: http://www.wantspacegotspace.co.uk/news?r=south&c=leisure

Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator's stated rationale. --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2012 (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) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia at the 1998 FIFA World Cup

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

Non-notable, Colombia went out in the groups. Information is limited and can be found at the pages on the 1998 World Cup's fixtures and squads. Very few teams have articles on their performance at a World Cup, especially those who went out in a group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiasummer95 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I completed this AFD on behalf of the nominator, and entered it into the log. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, article contains nothing of worth, and nothing that isn't already present elsewhere in Wikipedia. The "keep" aguments from the last AfD from 2008 are incredibly weak. Giant Snowman 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need articles in the format "Fooland at the 19XX FIFA World Cup". I can understand the need for articles like China at the 2004 Summer Olympics, because that combines all sports in a multi-sport event, which the FIFA World Cup is not. I wouldn't expect to see China in athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics, which is what the article under discussion is equivalent to...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It could probably be expanded pretty heavily, with information such as squad selection, tournament preparation, etc. but it's had a chance to add that in the last four years and hasn't done so. – Pee Jay 15:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is getting deleted, we should probably get rid of the others (Brazil at the 1974 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 1978 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 1982 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 1986 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 1990 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Brazil at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Colombia at the 1994 FIFA World Cup, Croatia at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, Croatia at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup and Trinidad and Tobago at the 2006 FIFA World Cup). – PeeJay 15:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - but we should wait for community consensus to emerge. GiantSnowman 17:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suits me. Good to have a list of those article here though so we know what needs deleting next. – PeeJay 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good thinking. Giant Snowman 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary spinoff, there is no info in this article that isn't already included 1998 FIFA World Cup. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Clapps Herman

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

Was dePRODed by creator. Concern was: Has references, but mostly a list of publications and a faculty listing that do not assert notability. Fails to meet criteria at WP:CREATIVE for biographies and WP:ACADEMIC for faculty staff.I still feel that the references supplied are either to the subject's own works, routine listings, and various appearances at conferences. I do not see, in so far as the quality of the sources, how the subject meets either WP:BLP, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ACADEMIC, so I'm letting the community decide here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article seems thorough, and I think it meets Wikipedia's WP:CREATIVESquareanimal (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment I'm not seeing much evidence of her meeting WP:CREATIVE. There are reviews of books she edited, but none of books she wrote. All the prizes she's won seem minor, not the sort that receive press/media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the only reviews I put up there IS the book she's written (not edited). The Anarchist Bastard is her memoir. I'm still working on putting up more references and awards. This is my first real Wiki article, so I'd appreciate any advice on how to avoid deletion. She's very well known in the Italian American community of writers. Let me know what I can do. Thanks so much! Srdemuro (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Samantha[reply]

Unfortunately, being well known does not count towards Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The kind of WP:Reliable sources that are required are articles about her in the established press. Notability is not inherited by books she has written - anyone can write a book. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Should I find more references of people writing or talking about her? I think a lot of the references do that but I listed them as her name instead of the author of the articles -- will this make a difference? Srdemuro (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is mostly WP:OR puff centering around what appears to be her first and only book: The anarchist bastard : growing up Italian in America, which WorldCat shows in <100 institutions. It also lists some edited works of more famous authors like Camile Paglia, but these seem also to be held by <200 institutions. I think the clincher is that most of the sources are either extremely obscure (e.g. "Prof. C.A. Albright’s Creative Writing course, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA., February 28, 2005") or written by the subject herself. This is a relisted AfD and I think if better sources were out there, they'd have been found by now. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Joanna Clapps Herman has contributed to many articles and anthologies that build Italian American literature and expands on narratives. The references are not "extremely obscure," she is very influential and known in Italian American literary communities, and her work is accessible to those outside academic communities. Do you all think this article could be eligible for a stub? Srdemuro (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being "very influential and known in Italian American literary communities" would help her case if real sources could be found to confirm this – otherwise this statement is nothing more than testimonial. Conversely, "her work is accessible to those outside academic communities" is irrelevant. I think the only way to help this article is to find such sources. I couldn't. Agricola44 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I agree with Agricola44 that this does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Whether or not this is "eligible for a stub" is not a valid question: a stub is just an article waiting to be expanded (not a short article on borderline notable subjects), so our notability guidelines apply to stubs in the same way as to longer articles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would expect an academic to have published more than just a memoir (The Anarchist Bastard) to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Edited works do not count and contributions to journals are expected of academics these days. I don't see evidence of significant original work. One book, and a memoir at that, means nothing.--Zananiri (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "edited works don't count". Some edited works are highly notable and contribute to the notability of their editors. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're all saying. I was just hoping to help this article out by finding more resources. Srdemuro (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first article too so I want to learn more on how Wiki works. Srdemuro (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I hope that this experience does not put you off. Creating new articles is one of the hardest things here. If you follow this kind of AfD debates for a while, you should get a better feel for what is considered acceptable for inclusion and what is not and then your next attempt will certainly fare better! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree absolutely that 'some edited works are highly notable and contribute to the notability of their editor' but I was referring only to this particular case.--Zananiri (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Psycho

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

Not-notable musician; no references, obvious COI; prod removed Brianyoumans (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously spurious releases, no sources. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC.--SabreBD (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 3 July 2012 (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) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete gardiner

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

Does not appear notable per the notability guideline for biographies. Googling using the term "Pete Gardiner" musician retrieves some hits on Google Books, but they're brief mentions, and may not be about the same person. The search retrieves no hits on Google News. It does retrieve hits on Google News archives, but the only hit there that isn't from the 1930s is behind a paywall, although it does appear to be just another brief mention. Gardiner does not seem to meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia due to the lack of significant coverage. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really, this could possibly even be Speedy Deleted under criteria A7. But either way, there's no way this individual meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet general notability criteria, and looks too much like self-promotion. Squareanimal (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Neto

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

this page was made in 2007 and only has one sentence, there is no bio on this person other than the fact that they were an ambassador, no other information has been provided and the page has been neglected. Redsky89 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added additional content and references to the article. Though I agree it is a stub, the subject is notable.Tamsier (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nation to nation ambassador is a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By longstanding Wikipedia precedent, ambassadors are generally considered notable. See Category:Ambassadors and its hundreds of subcategories and associated articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:04, 5 July 2012 (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 Party of Five. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines, but a redirect to Party of Five is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew and Steven Cavarno

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

this page was made in 2004 and only has one sentence. the page has not been taken care of properly. there is no bio for them and when I looked them up it only shows their role on Party of Five they haven't done anything since 1999 Redsky89 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, child actors who had a few TV roles as young children (only one was a recurring role, in which they presumably alternated per usual Hollywood practice) and have done nothing since per IMDB. Could possibly have been speedied under A7. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Party of Five. They certainly exist, but I don't see any in-depth coverage that would evidence notability under WP:GNG. No harm in letting people find out about their only plausibly significant (notable would be too strong a word) role. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Party of Five - the target article does mention them. I see nothing of sufficient notability for a standalone article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (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) 19:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superradio Records

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

Not notable. Several links either do not refer to Superradio Records at all or return a 404 error. Those that do are not reliable sources. No GNews hits. GregJackP Boomer! 02:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found [17] but that was all, the label (as far as I can tell) did not have any charting music and does not meet WP:GNG. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable third-party sources. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 7 July 2012 (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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG was presented. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Kent-Martin

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

Declined PROD. References have been added, but subject does not seem to pass the threshhold for journalists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is the only article by User:Madamchutzpah. Kent Martin boasts a catalogue of awards, from local media awards to national and international awards for ground-breaking undercover investigations. If references are provided for this we may be in business. Sussexonian (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though you would expect someone like this person, with alleged glowing credentials, to have an online presence, I can't find one. Maybe this is because she works undercover! Either way, I've searched under Hannah Kent-Martin, Hannah Kent and Hannah Martin and can't see anything to convince me she meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of these mysterious awards. I wouldn't expect someone with a 7-year career to have too many awards, but I would expect major awards from the past 7 years to be covered online (there are a lot of minor awards in most fields but as a rule of thumb if an award gets no press coverage then it's not important or noteworthy). She seems a run-of-the-mill reporter: exposing low standards at a university and appearing on somebody else's radio show aren't reasons to get a WP article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawa Steven Sherpa

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for biographies (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to have significant coverage from independent sources - agree that the article needs significant cleanup though. It appears very promotional (almost résumé-like) and obviously needs to be wikified, but I don't see any reason for outright deletion. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a variety of independent sources and he seems to known in the field as an advocate. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources cover the content of the bio. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:55, 8 July 2012 (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. No argument presented that this boxer meets WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Ramirez

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

A boxer. His current professional record is 2-0. Fails WP:NBOX. Only routine coverage exists. I've tried in past articles, but creating editor refuses to erase peacock language such as "destroyed" and "veteran" (It was Javier's Damian's first fight). Bgwhite (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (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) 00:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only 2 professional fights he doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. Being a nephew of a world champion doesn't add to notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NBOX. With only 2 fights he has yet to show he's notable. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2012 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers

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

Not notable. Sources given are not significant coverage of the actual article topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one mention in a reliable source offered (The New York Times) is passing and trivial; I have blocked the creator for a username vio. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from WP:ORG "it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." While some may argue that the only notable source listed is The New York Times there are several other archived references listed, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost clearly states the creator is not required to make them available. Also in regards to the The New York Times article being passing and trivial, it seems to state the publisher in question received an award at the United Nations from Kenny Rogers. BrianMcKinney1 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — BrianMcKinney1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep SEEDS is an organization and publication that has a long and continuous history of involvement in issues related to global food poverty. It seems quite obvious to me that it fulfills the Wikipedia "notability" requirement. Respectfully, H Steve Gardner (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)— H Steve Gardner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just for clarity, this user is the same one who previously operated under User:SeedsEditor, correct? Snow (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (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) 00:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independant coverage. Plus, there appears to be a copyvio issue with at least some parts of the article (the lead, for example, is almost a word-for-word copy of the blurb on any Seeds of Hope publication). Yunshui 雲‍水 07:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio issues can be addressed by reworking the content to be less of a replication while maintaining the salient points and adding appropriate attribution, so is not really grounds for deletion. But the lack of independent sources is another matter. There is the one local newspaper (the Waco Tribune) which has apparently covered the organization several times, but whether this is sufficient for notability is debatable. The other sources are all either not suitable to our needs for verifying sources or don't reference the subject ("Seeds of Hope Publishing") directly. I'm leaning towards delete myself, but I was hoping we'd have more input from the contributing editor so that we might be able to address these issues and perhaps save the article. Perhaps I scared them off with my question since they've already been asked to change their name and had the issue of COI broached; they might have felt they were treading on inappropriate ground again by commenting here, though of course there is nothing wrong with their participating on the AfD so long as they are upfront with their previous role in the article and follow policy in their arguments. Snow (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stefan Roloff. Should the artist's article be put up be deleted, this redirect can be deleted too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Gnome

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

This is an article about a virtual art project in Germany. I cannot find any references to the project in the German media. From the links given: one article in a Spanish newspaper discusses the project [18], and a German gallery page describes it [19]. I believe this Wikipedia article might be part of the project. In any event, the project does not appear to be not notable. AxelBoldt (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stefan Roloff. Yes, the article is part of the project; see the row of links at the bottom of the project page (looped video with sound), and note how the text there indicates why the article has a paragraph on the "Nobody intends to build a wall" statement. This is the appropriate gallery link. In addition to the Spanish-language links provided, I found this, but the German-language links in the article are just about the square and the project does not appear to have achieved sufficient coverage to justify a freestanding article. (It also needs to be summarized more clearly with a link to Stadtschloss, Berlin). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging is a good solution. AxelBoldt (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2012 (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) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the external links being used as sources are not enough to show that this art project has any sort of notability. I don't know if Merging to the artist's page is a great idea, because looking at it, I have some notability concerns for the artist himself, seeing as how the only reference on that page is a dead link. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2012 (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 Editis. Consensus is that the article cannot meet the notability guideline, but a redirect to the parent company Editis is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLE International

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to meet the "Sources" criterion for notability. It was marked for lack of sources two years ago and no independent sources have been added. Trackley (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Although the article that this should merge with ([[Editis]) is also in the same shape as this article, there is a small minute bit of notability. The problem is the sourcing of the notability. Just because a reference is not contained in the article does not mean that it does not meet notability guidelines. However, I do agree that since no one has done any editing to improve it in over 2 years that the standalone article is not needed (obviously not notable enough for others to improve for Wikipedia). However, I still feel that is should be listed for Editis and maybe a redirect to that page would be better? (Yes, I ended my comment with a question). --Morning277 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2012 (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) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Editis. Unreferenced article, consisting largely of a book list. No evidence of distinct notability in either this or the equivalent French article, so best redirected to the parent company. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure). Till 04:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Ibsen

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

Where are the actual achievements when you see past the family stuff? Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on finding a couple of good sources and one additional lesser source. There is some Google News archive press coverage of this person. Editors fluent in Norwegian will be best able to scan through the news archives for coverage, without the mind-numbing process of Google translation. See [20], (in Norwegian), which per Google Translate [21] appears to have substantial coverage in a major newspaper of her. See also [22] (in Norwegian), with thisGoogle Translation. See [23] with Google translation [24], which is just an anecdote about her and a cat. .There are some false positives, due to an Ibsen play having a character of the same name "Nora." WP:BIO is still satisfied, even when the person's coverage always mentions her famous ancestor and other relatives, as long as there are multiple instances of significant coverage of her in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably notable as a creative professional who's played an important role in major productions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (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) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's my sense (through translation) that there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, what's harder to tell is just how much of this is a case of NOTINHERITED. Still, given that I"m unsure about that, and that a proper assessment would probably require more context than I have, and given the dangers of systemic bias, a keep seems a sensible result. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Meyers

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY, either written by the subject or interviews of him. Googling turned up nothing better. The subject is clearly prolific, having written quite a number of books and articles but the necessary secondary coverage indicating that others have taken note of him is lacking. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Meyers is a well-known and respected author, who has written a number of very highly regarded books on C++. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But what has anyone written about him? Do you know of any reliable independent secondary sources? We do not consider authors notable just because they've written a lot of books. Msnicki (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not just that he has written lots of books, but that he has written several of the most highly regarded books on C++. Ask any experienced C++ programmer for his top 5 books on C++ and he'll probably mention at least one book by Meyers (i.e. Effective C++) if not more. Effective C++ is in its third edition and the first edition sold almost 100,000 copies (according to Amazon), which is a lot for a technical book. The problem is that it's going to be hard to find reliable sources for his notability, unless book reviews count. He has spoken at the ACCU_(organisation) conference (speakers). CodeTheorist (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a reference for the Dr Dobbs award to the page, and to be honest when you look at the other recipients of the award that alone should be enough to demonstrate his notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meyers is a well-known name amongst coders, not just C++. The Dobbs award meets the letter of WP requirement.
I don't understand the nominator's comment, "We need to establish that he, not just his work, is notable." Are they planning to also nominated John Kennedy Toole and J D Salinger? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my edit comment and I didn't realize it was confusing until after I'd saved. By the point, I couldn't correct it. What I meant was, notability requires that we find that this individual is notable, not just that he's written a lot of books. If you look at the diff, perhaps it'll be clearer. I disagree that a Dobbs award qualifies. It's not exactly a Nobel prize. And if he's that well-known, why hasn't anyone written about him? Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The verifiable references are rolling in now, so I think the argument to delete is moot now. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meyer's work is highly cited, as evidenced by a Google Scholar search [25], which, without too much stretching, is a demonstration of notability under WP:SCHOLAR. Moreover, in reply to Msnick, notability of creative professionals (such as authors) and academics *is* often inherited from their works, this is fairly explicit in the relevant notability guidelines. I'm kinda surprised we don't have an article on the original "Effective C++", given that it's been published in so many forms and editions. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried doing an article on a notable book? 8-( There's a pack of deletionists who hate the things on principle. Of course reading it first, or being familiar with the topic, is no barrier to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TwistedBrush Pro Studio

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

Digital painting software that does not appear to pass WP:GNG, judging by the arguments presented in the talk page discussion where the PROD tag was contested, and by the references presented in the article and found in a Google search. There are the usual mentions in WP:SPS and software listings, but apparently no substantial coverage in reliable sources. If nonetheless kept, the article would need a rewrite because it reads like an advertisement. Sandstein 05:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented many links to reviews of paint programs on the talk page of the article and in the external links in the article. Twistedbrush is ranked high in many reviews of paint programs. Please read through those links before deciding this issue. I have already suggested to Sandstein to tell me in what way this article reads like an advertisement so I and other editors can change that but he has not defined what parts of the article reads like an advertisement so we can change it. I can not see any difference between this article and the articles about Pixia, Artweaver, and many other paint program articles. My suggestion is to not delete it. Instead if user Sandstein thinks it reads like an advertisement please tell us in what way so we can change it. Roger491127 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG even though it is mentioned in lists of graphics software programs. The program has not won any awards nor has it been singled out for non-trivial consideration in a magazine or newspaper article. No third party books have devoted paragraphs to it. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. When Binksternet says it has not won any awards he is simply wrong. Look at http://www.pixarra.com/sketchbook_reviews.html and you can see more awards than I can count. (Twistedbrush was earlier called Sketchbook and the old name still lingers on some pages of the program's web site http://www.pixarra.com/ ) On the same page you can also find links to reviews. The link to mrswizard.com/ needs a more specific url: http://mrswizard.com/gem_twistedbrush.html. (Or you can do as I did, go to http://mrswizard.com/, choose Software reviews, choose Gems, Graphics, and you find Twistedbrush. And note that of the 13 programs mentioned in the section Gems-Graphics only one program, Twistedbrush, can actually be used for digital painting. PaintShop Pro was bought up by Corel several years ago and was transformed into a photo retouch program. The other Gems in that list are about screen capture, camera capture, web page creation, etc..) And Twistedbrush has been ranked very high by many independent reviewers, as I have showed in many links on its talk page. When it comes to magazines, newspapers and books I doubt you can find much about any paint programs except maybe for those made by the three big corporations, Microsoft, Corel and Photoshop.Roger491127 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked through the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts, and the archive of earlier discussions there and I note that all the other discussions are about persons (artists). So I am surprised that software like the digital painting, and image processing, program Twistedbrush has been submitted to that discussion. The Twistedbrush article has also been submitted to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software where it fits much better, so I suggest that the Twistedbrush article should only be discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software which is the proper place to discuss articles about software. Roger491127 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not being discussed on any of them, but rather here. Sorting simply reproduces the discussion on those lists to attract the attention of editors who may have expertise and knowledge of the subject, but any comment made will take place on this page regardless — Frankie (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. TwistedBrush is a program that has earned a high level of loyalty among its users, due to its versatility and responsive community, among other traits. It consistently has gotten strong referrals for several years, at least since 2007, in the publication PC Utilities, a British publication, which has noted its flexibility. The fact that a European source would be aware of it, and regard it highly as consumer friendly software, as a good resource for creative activity, speaks signigicantly of its tendency to impress those who test it. A view of the gallery of its users will be testimony to its graphic ability in producing quality digital art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativelyStructured (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— CreativelyStructured (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reads as an advertisement...Modernist (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have written most of the article, and to make sure it doesn't read as an advertisement I have been very careful to only describe, in a neutral tone, the technical properties of the program. I have asked the people who say it reads as an advertisement in what way it reads like an advertisement, so we can change how the article is formulated, but so far nobody has replied to that question. Anyhow, this voting procedure is not about how the article is formulated, this voting procedure is intended to determine the notability of the program Twistedbrush, so the vote from Modernist (talk) is invalid because he has voted in the wrong discussion. If there ever will be a voting about how the article is formulated his vote can be counted there.

Modernist (talk) did not give any valid arguments to show that TwistedBrush Pro Studio lacks in notability, and the reasons Binksternet gave have been shown to be faulty. Only I and CreativelyStructured (talk) have given valid arguments which show the notability of Twistedbrush. Most of my arguments can be read in the discussion page to the article.

The only wikipedia rule mentioned in the start of this voting procedure is WP:GNG, so notability and nothing else is what this voting procedure is about. People who say that this article reads as an advertisement should start by describing in what way this article reads as an advertisement so we can take care of that issue, but that is not the issue we are voting about here. And this is not the proper place for that issue. Roger491127 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check up the 10-15 web sites I have found, and mentioned in the external links list and in the article talk page before you vote, because in practically all such ranking sites I have found Twistedbrush ranked among the top ten, and often in the top 5 of paint programs. If you can find an overwhelming number of sites (40 or more) which rank paint programs, and they rank Twistedbrush at a non-notable rank of 30 or worse, I will accept that on an overwhelming number of sites which rank paint programs Twistedbrush is ranked as a non-notable paint program. And it will also show me that for some very strange reason I have stumbled upon the only 10-15 sites which rank Twistedbrush very very high among paint programs. A very strange coincidence indeed, as I have used search terms as "best paint program", "best digital painting software" and many similar search expressions. Roger491127 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The only wikipedia rule mentioned in the start of this voting procedure is WP:GNG, so notability and nothing else is what this voting procedure is about. - first of all, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, anything can be "what this...procedure is about", it is not limited to the nominator's arguments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for calling this "a voting procedure", It looked like that to me and I didn't know what else to call it. Anyhow, since this AfD|T began I have been able to find a lot more references which show the notability of Twistedbrush. So I ask those who wrote Delete, and others who come here, to read the talk page to the article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TwistedBrush_Pro_Studio and maybe re-consider your Delete-comment in this AfD. To begin from the bottom of that page I have found 3 books and one statement from Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art, also statements from at least 3 very good artists (digital painters) and countless rankings from web sites which review and rank paint programs. So the reference material which was available when this AfD|T started has been complemented with a lot more material, including "substantial coverage in reliable sources". Roger491127 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry for thinking this discussion is about notability and nothing else. That was the impression I got as WP:GNG is the only rule referred to in the start of the discussion. I thought that we could handle the issue of notability here and close this AfD, after that we can discuss the issue "reads like an advertisement" on the talk page of the article. But if you want to discuss that issue here too I again invite those who think it "reads like an advertisement" to explain in what way it "reads like an advertisement", so I can rewrite it to get rid of that issue too. But as I have been very careful to avoid any positive statement about Twistedbrush in the article, only describing the technical features of the program in a neutral tone, I can not understand how it "reads like an advertisement". Roger491127 (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is more rational to take care of the most important issue first, in this case notability, and after that issue has been dealt with, we know if this article should be kept or deleted. Only after that issue has been decided there is reason to discuss how the article should be formulated, because if the article is deleted based on lack of notability there is no reason to discuss how to formulate the article. If we discuss both the existence of the article and the formulation of the article simultaneously we are wasting our efforts and it becomes a confused and irrational discussion.

And that is also why I have not worked much with the article since the notability of Twistedbrush was questioned and the existence of the article was threatened. It is a waste of effort to work on an article which is threatened with deletion. So I have concentrated on collecting evidence which shows the notability of Twistedbrush. If the result of this discussion is that the article should be kept I can use a lot of the material I have gathered to make the article better. Roger491127 (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a promotional leaflet! If that was the only problem, then it could probably be dealt with (AfD is not for clean up, after all) - but I see no evidence that this meets the notability criteria. The list of awards they show on the website appear to be almost wholely made up from non-notable websites (non-notable as Wikipedia defines it, some of them may well be very good websites, even if hardly any of them are ones which I personally know of). When I saw a link to CNET, my hopes were raised - but there is no review by CNET staffers, just the company's own description - user reviews are not counted as reliable enough. All in all, I see nothing which would convince me that this meets the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your view of CNET, that is not one of the stronger reasons to keep the article, if you disregard all the user reviews and look only for CNET staffers views. But obviously you did not read all the evidence of notability and high rankings I have collected on the talk page of the article, like this, for example: At http://www.diaryofanartist.com/software_painting.html Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art has reviewed practically all painting programs in existence. He says this about Twistedbrush: "When I made my list of top ten painting programs there were three that all could easily be number one. I chose Painter for number one only because it comes in both Mac and Windows versions. If Twisted Brush had a Macintosh version I would put it at number one. Its that good."

If this is not a voting procedure but a discussion with the aim of reaching consensus, why are people just adding a vote and then disappear, why are these people not staying and participate in a discussion? How can we reach a consensus if people do not participate in a discussion? If people only make a very superficial review of the issue and leave a Delete comment with little or no reason this looks more like a voting procedure than a discussion with the goal of reaching consensus. Why are people who participate in this AfD not reading all the reviews and comments I have linked to in the talk page of the article?

Look at Binksternet's Delete comment, for example: "Does not meet WP:GNG even though it is mentioned in lists of graphics software programs. The program has not won any awards nor has it been singled out for non-trivial consideration in a magazine or newspaper article. No third party books have devoted paragraphs to it." His arguments have been shown to be faulty on most points. I have found 4 books (on google books which are seen as good sources in wikipedia) mentioning Twistedbrush as one of the best painting programs. (5 books if I could count a book found on Amazon dot com, but for some reason Amazon dot com is blacklisted in wikipedia). Twistedbrush has not only been mentioned in program lists (as Binksternet writes), it has been ranked very high in many web sites comparing and ranking paint programs. CreativelyStructured (talk) Told us that Twistedbrush "consistently has gotten strong referrals for several years, at least since 2007, in the publication PC Utilities, a British publication". And among its awards you can find several "Editors choice" awards. So the only point in Binksternet's comment which has not been disproven is "mentioned in newspapers", but how often do you see software reviews in newspapers? I have never seen one. But thanks to Binksternet for at least mentioning several reasons for his comment.

If we count New York Times web site for software reviews as a part of a newspaper we find a very favorable review of Twistedbrush by Sue Chastain, hired by New York Times as a graphics software expert. Roger491127 (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Phantomsteve. I also concur with Sandstein that the article as is, if kept, would need to be rewritten per WP:NOTADVERTISING. While it might be a good program (and indeed, I'm not one to judge whether graphics programs are good), I tend to agree that this product does not meet criteria for inclusion. Velinath (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that if notable sources are being found they should be added to the article and not kept on the talk page. Velinath (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have now added the notable sources to the article.

Another thing, could you who want to contribute to this discussion please declare your qualifications. How much experience and knowledge do you have of paint programs?

I have used Photoshop for 1 hour, Corel Painter for 2 hours, Gimp and Gimpshop for several hours, Pixia for 20 hours, Paintshop Pro, version seven for 50 hours, (last version before Corel bought it up and changed it into a retouch program). Artweaver for 5 hours, Artrage for 1 hour. I have used Twistedbrush for more than 15 hours. I have used Project Dogwaffle Professional for 10 hours, and tested its followers PD Particles and PD Howler. I have tested microsoft Paint and Paint.NET. I have used Ultimate Paint. I use FastStone Image Viewer as my image viewer but also for quick retouch operations, because even though it is mainly a viewer program it has a lot of image retouch capabilities. For example when working with old photos, they often have too much contrast, so all light colored areas are white and darker areas are black. By adjusting the gamma value and brightness you can make an old photo show a lot more details than was visible to begin with. I have used PhotoFiltre for several hours. The program Image Analyzer has even more special features for image retouch purposes. And I have studied the development of paint programs for 10 years, and real-world painting with oil and acrylic colors for many years.

I have studied the theory of painting for many years. 2 years ago I discovered the web site http://realcolorwheel.com/ by Donald Jusko and I have spent more than 10 hours studying it. He does not use digital paint programs but his knowledge can be applied to both real world and software painting. I have made around 25 paintings in different software programs, and around 10 which I am still working on. I have made around 35 real world paintings in oil and acrylic paint.

I have watched hundreds of painting lessons by Bob Ross and I have studied his teacher William Alexander. These painters are impressive in how they can produce a very nice painting in half an hour, but Donald Jusko is more advanced theoretically.

What knowledge and experiences do you guys have?

I have also studied the wikipedia articles about all other painting programs and researched the notability of those programs. When I searched the web with search expressions like "best paint program", "best painting software", "best digital art software" and many similar search expressions I found that Twistedbrush is ranked very high on most ranking sites and most of the other paint programs which have articles about them in wikipedia can not even be found in the top 20 of those ranking lists. So if we set the notability limit above Twistedbrush we must delete the articles about practically all other paint programs. And I found that the articles about the other paint programs read a lot more like advertisements, many positive adjectives written by the editors of those articles. So practically all of those articles have to be deleted, if we use the criteria you who voted delete for this article have used. Roger491127 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main experience in this situation is my knowledge of the notability criteria for articles on Wikipedia! Although the articles about "all other painting programs" may likewise not meet notability criteria (I haven't checked), that is not really the issue here. We are considering whether this article should be in Wikipedia, and I stand by my opinion above that this should be deleted. Those of us who are commenting here do not have to look for other articles to be deleted - although if you want to leave some links to them on my talk page, I am certainly happy to look at them and if necessary nominate some of them for deletion, subject to my time being available to do that! However, that has nothing to do with this current discussion - see here. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The article about Pixia should be deleted because Pixia lacks in notability, the article reads like an advertisement and lacks references. Furthermore, the last version of Pixia has been released for those who liked the program and the author is now concentrating on a new program called Pierha, so the program Pixia has effectively disappeared. A new program named Pierha is released in its first beta versions and has no notability at all. Maybe one day, several years into the future, the program Pierha may reach notability enough to motivate an article in wikipedia, and in that case Pixia could maybe be mentioned as a predecessor in the Pierha article. The main site which supported Pixia, http://www.ab.wakwak.com/~knight/, has been removed from the web, most likely because the program has reached the end of its existence. When I searched for rankings for Twistedbrush I found many high rankings for Twistedbrush but Pixia was not included in any of those ranking lists. So if Twistedbrush is lacking in notability, the program Pixia has no notability at all.

And, by the way, the articles about all other paint programs (and graphic editors in general), except maybe for those produced by Photoshop and Adobe (Corel) should also be deleted, as they are all less notable than Twistedbrush. Check up my list of ranking sites for paint programs and you will see that I am right. Photoshop and Corel are also ranked lower than Twistedbrush in ranking sites, but they are rich companies so the notability for them can probably be motivated by being mentioned in books and magazines. So there should only be two articles about paint programs (graphic editors) in wikipedia. One about Photoshop and the variants of Photoshop, and one about Adobe Corel and its graphical editor programs.When Corel bought Paintshop Pro more than 10 years ago there were only 3 well known graphical editors in the market. By buying PsP Corel got rid of one of its two competitors in the paint program field, and by transforming PsP into a photo retouch program Corel added another type of graphical editor to its suite of graphical editors. Corel already had Corel Painter as their flagship in the painting category. Photoshop and Corel develop very slowly and concentrate more about covering the whole price range, so they have a full featured product which is very expensive, an "essentials" product for half the price, and a low price product, so they have something for every wallet. Photoshop is developed slowly because it it serves mainly as a shell program for thousands of plugins. It is like an aircraft carrier from WWII, the same old steel shell can be used for a long time, while its old diesel engines are replaced by nuclear power plants and turbine engines, and its weapons are constantly upgraded, new computer systems, new radars and new missiles are attached to the old steel shell. But the main interface of Photoshop is still as bad and hard to work with as it was 10 years ago, while newer programs like Twistedbrush have been developed into programs with much better interfaces and are a lot easier to work with. Big corporations like Photoshop and Corel do not have to listen to their users, they have enough money to advertise and convince people that their interface is good, while smaller, one-man companies, listen to their users and develop their programs constantly. Roger491127 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the end, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria boils down to having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article, as the time of this comment, has no reliable sources attesting to notability. I searched on my own and found press releases, but no significant independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like all the others who voted Delete I guess you did not bother to use any of all the links I have supplied to show the notability of Twistedbrush. There are four books, four statements from painters and experts on paint programs (one of them on New York Times web site for software reviews, another Tony Johansen, Director East Sydney Academy of Art), one computer magazine and around 15 ranking sites for paint programs (and general graphic editors) among my links, but you obviously see all these sources as "no reliable sources". Roger491127 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You are wrong about me reviewing the links. I did. You are right about my view of those sources. they are not reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You are the first who defends his vote. But I still can not understand how you can deem all these sources as unreliable. If you apply the same criteria to all other graphics editors I must assume that you want to delete all articles about graphics editors, because you can hardly find more reliable and numerous evidence for better notability for any other paint programs, or graphics editors in general, except maybe for the two big corporations Adobe and Photoshop and their products. Roger491127 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of other articles is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Those other articles may also need to be deleted, or perhaps there are references that could be added to them. Regardless, the sourcing for this article does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I as an editor nominate articles to an AfD for deletion or can only admins do such nominations? Roger491127 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "The state of other articles is not relevant to this deletion discussion. " by Whpq (talk): Well, it is actually relevant, as the notability limit set for this software must be applied to all articles about software. If the decision in this discussion becomes Delete we know that the notability limit for articles about software is set above the notability of Twistedbrush, if the decision becomes Keep we know that the limit is set below the notability of Twistedbrush. To be consequent we must apply the same rules to all articles about software. And if wikipedia has already set a limit for notability through earlier AfD's about software, that level of notability has to be applied to the article about Twistedbrush.

Are there any earlier AfD's about the notability of software which can serve as precedence for this case? Or is this the first case, which will serve as precedence for all following cases? Roger491127 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many other pieces of software have been discussed at AfD, but there is no precedence set by them. Some of them get deleted, some get redirected, some get kept. It goes by the consensus. The results of this AfD does not set a precedence.

As to other articles about software, some of them may not meet the criteria for inclusion - in which case someone can nominate them for deletion. But, the results of this AfD do not automatically mean that other articles should be deleted or should be kept. Firstly, they may be better sourced; secondly, they may be source-able even if they are not currently adequately sourced. Each AfD is treated in isolation - you can't say "This should be kept because there are other similar articles", or "If this is deleted, so should lots of other articles". OK, I understand that you are protective of this article - but that does not mean it should be kept, or (conversely) that other articles should be deleted. As I said on my talk page, there are a few articles which I hope to look at when I get a chance, and if necessary to nominate for deletion. But those articles have no bearing on this discussion. This software does not meet the criteria for inclusion from what I can see, and so I support its deletion. And that's not because I'm a deletionist... if you look at my AfD record, you will see that sometimes I suggest deletion, sometimes keeping, sometimes merging or redirection. Each case is individual. If you look at my record, you will see that I am happy to change my viewpoint if the arguments for the other side are persuasive... in this case, the arguments for keeping this article have not been persuasive to me. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:17, 11 July 2012 (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) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konge

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

Neither linked article refers to "konge", which is (sure enough) the Danish and Norwegian word for "king". I can see that this disambiguation page is a completely good-faith and potentially useful creation, however I am not sure that it is the best approach. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page was created as a redirect to History of Norway, then became a redirect to History of Denmark, and now it's trying to compromise by linking to both. Neither seems appropriate since, as you say, neither article mentions the term. Perhaps this page could be a soft redirect to Wiktionary's konge? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page makes no sense whatsoever to this Norwegian editor. __meco (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2012 (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, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the word occurs in the English Wikipedia (in titles of films, books, works of art) and explanations may be needed (e.g. when to use Kong rather than Konge). - Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary and certainly not a dictionary of foreign words. There is little need for this page to exist in its current state. CodeTheorist (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, WP is not a dictionary or a random listing of foreign words, and there is nothing here worth saving. The links to History of Denmark and History of Norway make little sense for this disambiguous page as well. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info on how to write Danish/Norwegian is useful, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTHOWTO. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't multiple articles or mentions on different topics that could be ambiguous with the title "Konge". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Syrian uprising (2011–present). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bukamal protests

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

Simply put the article is in violation of three Wiki guidelines. The main is Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article has no sources to back-up the claims in it. Second. It does not fulfill the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Except for one sentence The Al-Bukamal protests were part of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising the article has nothing to say to the Wikipedia readers. Third, given no sources are provided for the article it could also be considered in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I think that says it all. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need articles for every Syrian protest, especially not when we can't say more than a sentence. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I agree with BDD: If there is more than one sentence and also after reliable sources have been added, we could consider notability. Right now, notability has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I expanded it a little and added a reliable source. Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Now it is better, I have striken my vote.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The Notability of the article and its importance is still in question. For such a small incident, which was hardly reported in the mainstream media, isn't it better than to merge it into the article on the timeline of the Syrian uprising? Because, for this conflict, it has generally become a problem where editors have been creating articles on every small clash being reported. Several Syria conflict-related articles have already been deleted because of this. EkoGraf (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EkoGraf. Thanks for your response. I think this article's notable because it was the first time before the FSA was formed that armed protesters took control of tanks and armored vehicles. If I'm wrong then please correct me. Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The provided source does not confirm this being the first time rebels captured armored vehicles, and we do not have any other sources on the event. Also, the FSA was still not formed at the time, they came into being two weeks after Bukamal. And actually I think the first instance of a real mass armed uprising was in Jisr al-Shughur the month before when 120 security forces/deserters were killed in the town. Thus notability is still in question given it was not reported on in the mainstream media except for that one day and limited at that. Like I said before, since there is at least one source now, would you be open to the idea of merging it to the Syrian uprising timeline article? And it seems that EllsworthSK backs-up this idea. EkoGraf (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding 😜Anyway, I think it should be merged. Al-Mujahid Fi Sabil Allah (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, if you are in favor of a merge, as well as EllsworthSK, I, as the editor who nominated it for deletion, would change my opinion to merge. Since we have at least one source now. EkoGraf (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article or Deir ez-Zor during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article for the lack of notability. There were A LOT of protests in Syria during last year, in a lot of them military personell defected and riot ensured, creating separate article about each of them would lead to numerous content forks. No need for that. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 17 June 2012 (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, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the main article. There isn't sufficient sources to justify a separate article on its own, but its worth a mention on the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Gregory

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

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP and being a Colonel also fails WP:SOLDIER DBig Xray 05:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed per nom. WP:SOLDIER is fairly clear on this. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the subject is part of a possibly notable judicial body, the subject is primarily a JAG Officer and thus WP:SOLDIER is relevant. The subject does not pass SOLDIER at this time. As for WP:GNG there isn't significant coverage of the subject himself to warrant passage of GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Keep- WP:Soldier is only relevant in that its suggestions for notability have not been met, and no one here has even suggested they have. Judges fall under WP:Politician, and national level appellate judges have by common outcomes been determined to pass, whether associated with the military or not. The only area the article fails, and if nothing is available offline will continue to fail, is in-depth coverage. Wikipedia still recognizes the position. Dru of Id (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dru of Id/WP:POLITICIAN #1, or as an alternate Redirect to United States Court of Military Commission Review. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expand: In my view, DGG's point at the WP:DRV listed below makes a salient point. I do believe, no matter what the letter of WP:POLITICIAN says, that as a "last appellate court", e.g., the SCOTUS of this particular system of law, that the representatives are inherently notable. This is consistent with WP:POLITCIAN's wording--it has a national or international scope, depending on your view. While it appears that my view is unlikely to prevail here, I think it's a mistake, these folks are, in a very clear way, just as notable as Miss Tuvalu 1935. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the consensus on similar AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Bechtold_(2nd_nomination) was delete.--DBig Xray 15:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I initiated a deletion review of these two closures. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's no evidence that this article on a living person meets the standards set by WP:BIO and WP:BLP Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the above have put it very well why. (And note that the DRV appears to be heading torwards endorsement). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 10 July 2012 (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) 19:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States Martial Arts Federation

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

Notability has not been established. Claims of organizing Judo and Kendo are known to be false or at least disengeneous. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldn't find any reliable independent sources about this organization. Francis Bond (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources to support claims of notability and the article seems to exaggerage its impact on martial arts in the U.S. Papaursa (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hosking

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

Does not meet WP:BIO -- the sources in use here involve incidental mentions, and while he is a CEO the companies are relatively small/minor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and being quoted in story about something else doesn't cut it. Msnicki (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Search results lead me to believe the subject falls short of WP:GNG: few reliable third-party sources, several statements made by the subject but about the actual topic of coverage, and passing mention. The subject also falls short of WP:ANYBIO for his corporate achievements and positions, and WP:PROFESSOR is a far cry. I found very little that could make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:19, 4 July 2012 (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 J. K. Organisation. Per duplication. If the main article should go up for AFD, feel free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JKO EZ

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

Non-notable organization. I can only find one appropriate source, and I don't think one is enough to satisfy WP:ORG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many links for JK Organisation
I feel that the page must not be deleted as it represents a very prestigious group of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiegoel (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can add more links
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.199.196 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough to meet WP:N - and Archiegoel: take a look at WP:RS.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if this is a valid alternate name, redirect to the pre-existing article under the correct title. This is a POVFORK. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure). --BDD (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanandh

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

I can't really follow what the subject is from the way the article is written. I can't verify that "Sanandh" is a book as the article seems to claim, delete as original research. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the WP:GNG threshold. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTESSAY. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to have been A7-speedy deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2012 (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 article has changed significantly since it was nominated and notability has now been established, as all contributors to the AFD since the improvements have been made support. The arguments made by those for deletion no longer apply. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolgirl Apocalypse

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

This film has not been commercially released, was only shown at a film festival, has received no third-party coverage, and thus fails the Wikipedia:Notability (films) notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the issues you've outlined, and would add that the plot section is so poorly written it's almost incomprehensible--Williamsburgland (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Re-writing a plot summary is not all that difficult.[26] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic meetsWP:GNG Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival (has a Wikipedia entry) is a legitimate fantastic film festival in Seoul Korea and is noteworthy. Schoolgirl Apocalypse was developed in the IT Project and has screened at two consecutive festivals. In weeks the full lineup to the Fantasia Festival in Montreal (has a Wikipedia entry and is a notable fanastic film festival) will be announced and Schoolgirl Apocalypse will screen on July 30th of this festival as well.

Yukie Kito (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2183344/) has worked with Mira Nair, Wayne Wang and Jim Jarmusch and her film "Tokyo Sonata" received "Un Certain Regard Jury Prize" at the Cannes Film Festival (has a Wikipedia entry) in 2008.

While you may not have heard of these festivals, this producer or this film, these are facts and and within certain film communities these festivals, the producer and the film are known and recognized.

It is true that IMDB has been slow to be updated, however even the most perfunctory check of the links provided demonstrates the facts.

A film review was published in the Dec 2011 issue of "Écran Fantastique", a French fantastic film magazine. While the article is not on their website they do still have photos up http://www.ecranfantastique.net/4images/categories.php?cat_id=3659, and the full 5 page spread is shown on the Schoolgirl Apocalyse website media page (both English and Japanese sites) http://www.schoolgirlapocalypse.com/medialink.html. It was also reviewed by a German online film site when the film showed at the Japan Filmfest Hamburg http://www.dasmanifest.com/04/japanfilmfesthamburg2012.php

Forthcoming update will include the release date once it is announced, however it is currently scheduled for second week in Aug.

What is true is that I am new as a Wikipedian, my apologies for this. It is true that my formatting needs a great deal of work and your support in this has been appreciated.

Another Wikipedian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avicennasis also seems to agree in the legitimacy and notability of the film Schoolgirl Apocalypse, given his contribution to the edit of the article.

If a film such as "Zombie Ass" (has a Wikipedia entry)can be considered a notable Wikipedia entry, surely "Schoolgirl Apocalypse", which in fact is an art film masking as a so-called "sushi typhoon" type film <see Wikipedia entry>, can attain equal status.

As for the facts, your consideration of these facts is appreciated. Please do not delete this entry. -MrDOBDOB — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDOBDOB (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other films doesn't help your argument. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you can provide links to reviews or other press sources (in whatever language, but not press releases or advertising) that would be useful, however. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable film per our guidelines. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incubate for a short while. We have an film article that is undergoing improvement (albeit slowly), and an author interested in continuing its improvement. Issues seen here is a contibution from a new editor, and his angst at it being nominated for deletion. BUT as the film is completed, has screened, the topic is verifiable, and we do have an anticipated release just next month... we do the project far more good by ~~placing it in the incubator for a few weeks and~~ encouraging input from Japanese-language-reading Wikipedians than by outright deletion. And while we wait, the 5-page spread in Écran Fantastique might be brought forward and would do much toward addressing concerns with sourcing.[27] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed mind per sources coming forward and more anticipated within 2 weeks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Schmidt, Michael Q. How would you advise that since the Ecran article is in print only (Dec 2011)? It is clearly shown on the www.schoolgirlapocalypse.com site under "media" and photos show on the Ecran website (linked above)

Colapeninsula - Am curious who you believe is "attacking" which movie. If you refer to my mention of "Zombie Ass" am curious how you construed your opinion. Mention of "Zombie Ass" in fact is relative as they are both recent Japanese zombie films. A website "All things Zombie" referred to both films in a recent post http://www.allthingszombie.com/mb/index.php?/topic/9662-japanese-zombie-movies-2011-12-round-up/

For those who refute the notability could we see some detailed argument

Are the cited references 1. Legitimate or not 2. Notable or not

Ref argument sited above

1. Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival is legitimate and notable.

2. Yukie Kito, is a legitimate and notable Producer. Her name is is on all materials and at all festivals the film was shown. While mention is not yet in IMDB that does not mean that Yukie Kito was not the producer. Other references have been sited consistently.

3. Écran Fantastique is a legitimate and notable French film critic magazine, Schoolgirl Apocalypse shows on the Ecran website as well as copies of the Dec issue magazine are on the Schoolgirl Apocalypse website. One might have to purchase the magazine for any further detail, please advise.

It seems disingenuous and a bit lazy to not at least make the effort to put forth a cogent and complete argument for why this film is "not notable". All time and effort in this are appreciated. --MrDOBDOB

Okay... that the Écran Fantastique article speaks toward the fim is seen at the above link, but not its text. If the article were scanned and the 5 pages displayed readibly in a personal archive, that would allow us to determine its content, and even perhaps use some of its text to expand and cite the article. The article need not be available online. If you look at the Zombie Ass article, you'll see it has references to multiple sources giving more than just verification of screening, but instead offer commentary and analysis. The Écran Fantastique citation would perform that same function... commentary and analysis. Speaking about other articles in a "hey, what about X, Y, or Z" fashion is an example of WP:OSE (see WP:WAX and WP:ATA). Your sources are for the most part fine for verifability of the film's existance and screenings. But notability for films requires more than simply existing and having screened. Being on IMDB or not really does no matter, as a site it is accepted as being far from comprehensive. What matters here is the film being spoken of in detail in reliable secondary sources, no matter the language. Do you have a link to the Alexander Karenovics, Manifest, Das Filmmagazin? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Michael for the objective, detailed and helpful advice. Am assuming the personal archive you mentioned is a repository function availble on Wikipedia? Is this the same as the photo upload or different? Obviously this would be copyrighted material but I think I can locate, scan and upload for reference only. It is in French of course. At any rate will do. Also hope that the Fantasia lineup will be released soon and will update the entry with that reference as well (Fantasia does seem to wait till the very last minute to make it's final schedule public) Thank you again Michael and thanks to any and all for your time and consideration, both for or against this particular article. --MrDOBDOB — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDOBDOB (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple minor things first... To indent a sentence so it is seen as response to a comment above it, use one or two colons (:) at the start of a sentence. To "bullet" the sentence, begin with a * (shift-8). And to have the Wikipedia sign and date yur comment, end it with 4 tildes (~~~~).

The archiving to which I refer is not something we do at Wikipedia. A personal archive would be a file YOU create and store on a free site such as http://photobucket.com There YOU can store scans as a personal archive... no matter the language... and not have its being archved elsewhere be a violation of copyright policies within Wikipedia. Then, when using such as a citation within Wikipedia, you could use the off-wikipedia url link to the stored image and in the citation reference description state the name and date of the magazine of which you stored the scan (format= personal archive).

Study WP:CITE. When using a live online url as a citation, it must be remembered that such do not always last forever , and a page linked today might not be available next month or next year (see WP:LINKROT). For THAT we can preemptively use online archives such as http://webcitation.org, which will store in perpetuity, what the page contained the the date it was archived in their database. The original source page might then vanish, but the archived copy remains in site's database.

And back to the article being discussed, the article incubator is a temporary place where an article might be kept on Wikipedia for collaborative editing to address issues and make it and its citations and format suitable for a return to mainspace... a place per Deletion policy where we can "hold" an article whose time is almost here, but not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and done. Of being a noob here I am guilty. OK have the scan now and will attempt your recommendation tomorrow. Fantasia Montreal lineup will be announced on July 11th.MrDOBDOB (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt have posted the article as you described to a personal archive and noted that in a new "Reception" section. Also tidied up some spelling and other format issues. Please let me know if this is enough to move this article from Incubate to Keep. Again your time is appreciated in this. Again Fantasia lineup announcement is scheduled for July 11.MrDOBDOB (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on translations. Could you perhaps email me a larger scans of those pages? I have an email link on my user page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Monday Asia time, Sunday North AmericanMrDOBDOB (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel terribly nooby today, can not find your email link in the 20 mins spent searching on your user page. Any hints? Sorry about this. Do have a new scan for you. Also your user page is very impressive. Thank you for the continued kind support. MrDOBDOB (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ Keep. As the article creator is fairly new, we should probably not be too harsh on him. Nevertheless, I failed to find much coverage in either English or Japanese, which is understandable since the film hasn't been released yet. However, as the article does look promising, for now, I would suggest incubating until after its release and more sources are found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, since MichaelQSchmidt was able to find some reliable coverage (though not in Japanese), it can have an article. The article needs to be cleaned up, however. Still, the article is quite promising, and I can help clean it up a little if you guys want. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check new sources and coverage in German and French. Thank you. MrDOBDOB (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, it's probably best to incubate this for a while. If you want, I can help you with the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind offer. I do hope the references will push this article to keep. But if the Administrator does not agree I would very much appreciate your help in this. Again thank you.MrDOBDOB (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't hold your breath regarding its long-awaited general commercial release, as it was supposed to be released "later this year" back in August 2011, and the August 2012 release date now claimed by the article author is not mentioned anywhere on the film's official site, which, with one month to go, makes me somewhat skeptical. While I am sure that the author would like to see his article about the film kept, this is increasingly looking to me like a case of WP:TOOSOON. --DAJF (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... "commercial release" is wonderful, but it does not guarantee any film receive the requisite coverage. Indeed, many films that have never have commercial release are still able to be found notable through their coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean the article should be incubated or not? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the reviews in the mentioned articles. So as you can see the film exists, is legitimate, recognized and even respected by third party reviewers. As for your continued aggression and disbelief about a release date DAJF perhaps if you were just a bit patient you would see. MrDOBDOB (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got any reliable sources to confirm a date of release? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above in response to DAJF... theatrical release is not a mandate per WP:NF. This film HAS screened and as shown, HAS received non-English commentary and review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet but I understand that the distributor is planning a press release that will be posted on the schoolgirlapocalypse.com site once released. I would imagine that it would also be time around when Fantasia releases their lineup on July 11th. Could not be much past that.MrDOBDOB (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case, then it's probably to incubate the article at least for now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be for too long, in any case. Once I am able to translate the offered sources, I'll be doing some work on it myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most kind. Thank you for the objective perspective and support MichaelQSchmidt. To others with a considered view, even critical, your time in this is appreciated.MrDOBDOB (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears other Wikipedians have found the Fantasia　lineup　release　ａｎｎｏｕｎｃｅｍｅｎｔ　（before　July１１ｔｈ　as　I had heard)　and　cited　it　as　well　as　other　Japanese　ａｒｔｉｃｌｅｓ。MrDOBDOB (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Found it and added... and did some other expansion as well. Also found it reviewed by Korean language sources.(google translate) and (google translate) We may not have to incubate this one after all... as it is receiving international commentary and is due to screen at the Fantasia Film Festival in less than two weeks. I think it reasonable to state that as it is completed and screened, WP:NFF does not apply and it is creeping up on WP:NF... and as it has growing coverage, we can allow it to remain and be improved over the next few weeks as new sources present themselves... with English language sources being quite likely forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per excellent work and improvements by Schmidt. Cavarrone (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Schmidt has done a fantastic job on this article. Very grateful for the kind support and apologies for any inconvenience to him and others. Thank you.MrDOBDOB (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camfil

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

Reason Jscb (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) This page is little more than an advertisement for a specific company and does not contain anything worthy of inclusion within an encyclopaedia. It does not list any sources and the information contained within it is unverifiable.Jscb (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fully agree that it is in need of improvement and in particular better referencing. The subject should however fulfill WP:CORP with no problems, and I completely disagree with the nominator's claims that it "does not contain anything worthy of inclusion within an encyclopaedia" (huh??? the probably largest company worldwide in its sector, with some 3000+ employees, although perhaps an "unsexy" industry) or that "it is unverifiable". Turnover figures, products, ownership, corporate history &c. of medium- and large-size companies are definitely verifiable. (BTW, my involvement with the article is only interwiki-linking, but I had heard about them before.) Tomas e (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 3. Snotbot t • c » 09:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - need of better references. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs more refs; but company is notable.-- Dewritech (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't explained how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

take a closer look at GN and you'll find broad international coverage of the corp.-- Dewritech (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (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. Discussion centered around the question of whether the inclusion criteria for this list article were (or could be) clearly defined. While approaching the question in different ways, there was a rough consensus that there was, or could be such a bar (e.g., perhaps via third-party sources using the term, perhaps by the previous criteria mentioned by Uncle G.)

As an aside on the underlying policy requirements, our stand-alone list policies do not demand complete objectivity in the concept behind a list. WP:LSC says it best, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.", if there's any problem with the objectivity of the previously-used criteria, the criteria BD2412 proposes would be firmly within policy. As a result, should there be any remaining disagreement over which of these criteria should be used, that can be resolved through normal discussion on the article Talk page. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmark court decisions in the United States

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

WP:OR. As pointed out on talk, there is no criterion for what constitutes being "landmark". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename? The word "landmark" is vague and we also have List of United States Supreme Court cases which lists all court cases with WP articles in chronological order, but it's still useful to classify court cases by subject area (which this article does but List of United States Supreme Court cases doesn't do). I'd suggest renaming to something like List of court decisions in the United States by subject or List of court decisions in the United States by area of law.--Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a navigational list; its purpose is to help end-users find content. There are good reasons why we need to supply such lists, and it's a step backwards to go about deleting them. Find a way to reorganise or repurpose the list.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the WP:OR after having looked at the list, nor the talk page. I can't see a single case on the list that hasn't been widely and fairly universally noted as a landmark case, other than the Obamacare case, which simply hasn't been out long enough to be in that status yet. List content differences can be addressed on the talk page, as has been the practice on this list. GregJackP Boomer! 12:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate and arbitrary criteria. We have List of United States Supreme Court cases, and it isn't really proper for us to synthesize that into something like our own Greatest Hits album. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When Landmark decision (AfD discussion) came up for deletion, the criterion, which is defined by Black's not Wikipedia editors, was explained. You should read it. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, it wouldn't hurt to have the criteria spelled out in the lede. bd2412 T 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It actually was spelled out in the lead, until a vandal blanked the section and no-one noticed for three and a half years. ☺ Uncle G (talk)
Keep. "Landmark case" is the terminology used and there are specific cases that are widely recognized as such. Debate over the inclusion of individual cases should be solved with discussion, not with deletion of the entire article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH is an issue here, because every case listed can be sourced to multiple third party reliable sources noting its status as a landmark case. bd2412 T 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned above it is a navigational list whose purpose it is to help end-users find content. For this reason I vote against deleting the page. As mentioned by user Roscelese debate over the inclusion of individual cases should be solved with discussion and not with deletion of the entire article. --P3Y229 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)
Keep - This seems like a frivolous proposal. I actually was thinking myself that there might be a slight bias towards more recent cases but the Robert's Court has also handed down quite a few landmark opinions so it might just reflect reality. In any case this article is important. Most of these cases (especially the older ones) are not disputed as landmarks and a proper understanding of the Constitution is nearly impossible without a working knowledge of these cases. Deleting this article would be a huge mistake and unfair to people wanting to know this information. This is a long-established article that should not even be considered for deletion in my opinion. It isn't a "greatest hits" compilation because these cases aren't stand-alone cases. They build upon one another in a very meaningful way. The suggestion that it is- forgive my frankness- appears to show a lack of understanding of the common law system in the United States. (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep - Any notion that the List of landmark court decisions in the United States is akin to an "[i]ndiscriminate" Wikipedia-User generated "Greatest Hits album" created by way of "arbitrary criteria" demonstrates an impressive naiveté of the legal profession at-large. It also ignores similar Wikipedia lists, such as the List of experiments which is described as "a list of historically important scientific experiments." A landmark court decision is similarly considered to be one which is historically important. Surely, if it is permissible to "synthesize" a List of experiments based on historical importance, it is permissible to do the same in the field of United States court decisions. Discussion among the legal profession over whether a court's decision is a "landmark" one or not is exactly parallel to discussion among the scientific profession over whether a scientific experiment is an "historic" one or not: There exists, in both fields, a general consensus over what events are of the greatest importance, as well as disagreements within each field over such matters. I strongly urge fellow users to vote against deletion. -Dcjackman (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The one objection seems to be that no one can conclusively say what is 'landmark' or not. Yet, that just isn't the case. Major decisions in different areas of the law can be said to be important, if used as precedent for future cases or if they made 'new law' on big issues. The article should remain, as is. Lord Roem (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe rename. Just because the criteria for what constitutes a "landmark" case is somewhat arbitrary doesn't mean that it's not a useful list to have. Kellogg has spent a lot of money litigating that Pringles are not actually potato chips, but they still get mentioned as such in the Potato chips article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (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.

Please see User:Sandstein/AfD closing for an explanation of the closing process.

I am discounting the "keep" opinions by Yerevanci and VartanM (because they contain personal attacks), and by Sprutt, Eupator and Hiosn (because they do not address the arguments put forth for deletion). This leaves us with 4 "delete", 1 "redirect" and 1 "keep" opinion. Although I give less weight to the "delete" opinion by Angel670 (because it is just a bare assertion), this is sufficient to find a consensus that we should not have a separate article on this topic: It is not my job as closer to determine whether the nominator's analysis of sources is correct, but all except one of the (non-discounted) opinions expressed in this discussion agree with him. The article is consequently deleted. Whether it should redirect anywhere, and where to, is a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 05:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Artsakh

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

This article survived 3 AFDs, but still remains nothing but original research. It has only one direct reference, Samvel Karapetian, which is a nationalist author from Armenia. Even if we consider the topic of this article to be a nationalist concept existing in Armenia, one source is not sufficient to establish notability. All the info contained in the article is WP:SYNTH, i.e. the creators took verifiable info from reliable sources that never mention "Northern Artsakh" and included it in the article to make it look as if all those sources describe this alleged historical region, which they don't. For example, August von Haxthausen never uses the term, but he is quoted nonetheless. The same with statistics. None of them relate to "Northern Artsakh", those are just statistics from various Soviet administrative units, and the USSR never had any administrative division or geographic or political concept called "Northern Artsakh". The map is also an original research, it does not come from any reliable source and represents the idea of the creator. It is time for the community to make the final decision about this OR article. Grandmaster 05:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking into the history of the article, there appeared to be a consensus at talk that this article be merged into some other article, even though the opinions differed to which one exactly. Talk:Northern Artsakh#Merge But once the article was merged, the merge was reverted: [28], and subsequent edit war with involvement of anon IPs and one registered user resulted in the article remaining. And looking at the last AfD, which I missed, it looks like the editors commenting there mixed mentions of northern Artsakh (i.e. northern part of the region called Artsakh) in some literature with the alleged geopolitical notion of "Northern Artsakh", the latter meant to include large territories beyond the region of Artsakh/Karabakh, such as Ganja, Gazakh, etc, up to the border of Azerbaijan with Georgia. Grandmaster 06:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Artsakh (in green) up to the 9th century. This map clearly shows that its historical borders.

Keep First of all, the region was called Artsakh long before Turkic tribes appeared in the region and called it Karabakh. The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast borders do not have anything to do with historical Artsakh's borders, look at the map on the right.

Yes, I do agree that the term Northern Artsakh is relatively new, but I can't agree that Samvel Karapetyan's 2004 book is the only source on that topic.

Here are two articles from newspaper Yerkir from 1991 that refer to the region (especially Shahumyan) as Northern Artsakh:

Also, isn't Western Azerbaijan (political concept) the same? I will agree to delete this article, only if that article would be deleted as well.

Before calling S. Karapetyan a nationalist, please read more of your president's speeches, for example the one saying our main enemies are Armenians of the world, which sounds fascist to me personally as an Armenian.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yerkir is not a third-party source either. Parishan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say it's third-party source? The problem here is not neutrality, but the term which is used by Armenians to describe the region. See the deference? This article clearly states that Northern Artsakh is a a geopolitical concept used in the Republic of Armenia to refer the region in north-western Azerbaijan.--Yerevanci (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Azerbaijan (political concept) and Greater Armenia (political concept) are notable political concepts, because they are supported by notable politicians in respective countries. As for the political concept called Northern Artsakh, I don't see any significant political party or movement supporting it, and no proof of its existence as an actual political concept. It is only promoted by one scholar in Armenia, and therefore is a very marginal view. The newspapers are not in English, and we cannot verify what they say, but then again, assuming that they use the combination of words "Northern Artsakh", that is still not enough to establish notability. Grandmaster 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not my problem that you can't read Armenian. It's 2012 out. You can use online translators.

And what is Western Azerbaijan based on? On some dictator's speech to his servants? That's what it seems to me.

Above you said the following: one of them relate to "Northern Artsakh", those are just statistics from various Soviet administrative units, and the USSR never had any administrative division or geographic or political concept called "Northern Artsakh".

And was Western Azerbaijan ever used during Soviet era? No. Isn't it original research as well? Isn't this double standard? --Yerevanci (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable politician such as the country leader uses the concept, then it proves its notability. Which well known politician uses "Northern Artsakh" as a political concept? Western Azerbaijan may contain original research, but it does not excuse the OR in this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Grandmaster 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bringing that up as an excuse. I'm saying that if you delete this article, I don't see any reason why you should keep the other one. Just because Aliyev said that Armenia's territory is historically Turkic doesn't give you permission to create an article and fill it with biased information.--Yerevanci (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate that article for deletion, if you are convinced that it should not exist. Greater Armenia (political concept) also presents a biased point of view, but since it is supported by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, it is notable for an article. Grandmaster 20:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Why am I even discussing something with some Azeri, whose soldiers kill my compatriots on the border and his fascist leader considers my nations his enemy. Good luck my lovely neighbor, have fun!--Yerevanci (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind WP:CIVIL. Grandmaster 05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is curious how articles like this come to be created when there is absolutely no basis to it, not to mention the POV nature of the single relevant source used. Even with the minor and rather questionable evidence presented, it is not clear as to when and how exactly this entity was monolithic or existed outside of its surrounding. The article makes references to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, neither of which controlled a region with such a name. The rest of the article are just facts about eight separate administrative units of Azerbaijan, again without any proof as to why they should be groupped in this article. One might as well group and report on Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein in one article and call it 'Northern Italy'. Parishan (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super, Strong, Huge, Mega, Giant, Keep Article is sourced and is about a term that is used in the Republic of Armenia. It has been kept 3 times and will be kept again. Azerbaijani editors need to get over their butthurt and get back to their Eurovision parties. VartanM (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Վարդան ախպեր, սրանց սիկտիր արա, թող գնան ինչ քաք ուզում են ուտեն: Ավելի լավ ա լուրջ էջերի վրա ուշադրություն դարձնենք, էս էջը առանձնապես ոչ մի բանի պետք չի: Նենց որ բանի տեղ մի դիր սրանց: Ճիշտ կլինի մեր ուժերը կենտրոնացնել ցեղասպանության, Սումգայիթի ու ուրիշ կարևոր էջերի վրա: --Yerevanci (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Երեվանցի ջան, Մայ փոինթ էկզակլի: Իֆ յու դոնթ վանթ դեմ թու անդերստանդ վաթ յու վռոթ, յու նիդ թու վռայթ ին ռիվերս թռանսլիտ, ադրվայզ դեյ քան յուզ գուգլ տրանսլեյթ: Besides, its freaking summer outside, WTF are you guys fighting over a stupid article on wikipedia. VartanM (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The lack of references is a rectifiable issue. Plenty of references can be found everywhere. Sprutt (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been waiting to be rectified since July 2009. Do you not think this is enough time for it to be considered untenable? Parishan (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request for deletion is a misuse of the deletion policy, plain and simple. I checked the article again and it has several good references. Samvel Karapetian is reliable source who features in many WP articles. The reference to WP:SYNTH is misuse as well. Reliable sources, good text, notable concept. This abuse of process shall be reported to administration enforcement. Sprutt (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "several good references" mention anything by the name of "Northern Artsakh". Samvel Karapetian is yet to be proven as a reliable source, as is any post-1991 historian on the Caucasus from Armenia or Azerbaijan. Parishan (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is clearly original research.Angel670 talk 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have an academic book about medieval Armenian architecture that uses the term "Northern Artsakh" as a definition of the region that lies immediately to the north of the territory of modern Nagorno Karabakh (see http://www.raa.am/Hs_Arcax/pict/Images/hs_artsakh_e.jpg). This book is part of a substantial series of books dealing with Armenian architecture in regions that are outside of the Republic of Armenia. That is more than enough to indicate the term's existence. Nagorno Karabakh is often also called "Artsakh" – but that is a modern borrowing of an old name. Medieval Artsakh is not the same territory as modern Nagorno Karabakh, and obviously that medieval territory had a "northern" section. "Northern Artsakh" is now used to define the territory of (and the historical monuments in) historical Artsakh that lies outside of, and to the north of, the borders of modern Nagorno Karabakh. Meowy 02:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article's content is rather unsatisfactory. It seems overly concentrated on just proving an Armenian presence, rather than having sources and an account of the region's history make that case. However, unsatisfactory content is not a reason to delete an article – it is a reason to keep it and try to improve it. Meowy 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one book using the term Northern Artsakh and claiming that there was such a region. One book is not sufficient to justify the claim that Northern Artsakh was a historical region. Plus, the author of that book Samvel Karapetian is not the most neutral person either, the British expert on the region of South Caucasus Thomas de Waal calls him an "Armenian ultranationalist". The article claims that Northern Artsakh is a political concept, but no sources exist to explain how it is used and who are the most notable proponents of it. Parishan is right, 3 years were more than enough to find some sources, including third party ones, if the topic of the article was something that actually existed in some shape or form. The fact that after 3 years we still have only one reference directly related to the topic, and even that one is of a dubious quality, speaks for itself. Grandmaster 04:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This obsession over the last 5 years you have about Samvel Karapetian, all of it based on a single sentence in an article by a journalist who has not written one word about architecture in his entire career, isn't going to run. Karapetian heads a notable research organisation and has authored numerous substantial and specialist academic books on medieval Armenian architecture over some 3 decades. The wording "Northern Artsakh" is also used in the 2001 book "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh". For example, from the preface on page 8, explaining what is not included in that volume: "Numerous monuments of Armenian history and architecture still remain undocumented (particularly, in Ghazakh, Shamkhor, Touz, Getabek, Dashkesan, Khanlar, Goran districts in Northern Artsakh; and Norashen, Nakhijevan, Shabooz, Julfa and Ordubad districts in Autonomous Republic of Nakhijevan"). Meowy 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De Waal does not have to be an architect to understand that Karapetian was expressing racist views, denying Azerbaijani people the right to live in Kelbajar and other places, from where they were ethnically cleansed, calling them interlopers, invaders, etc. There's a whole chapter in his book about his conversation with Karapetian. I would like to see at least one third party source, published outside of the region by a notable international scholar, supporting the claim that there was a historical region called Northern Artsakh. Again, to have an article about the historical topic, there should be multiple reliable sources published by international academia. If we are talking about political concept popular in Armenia, again there's not enough evidence to support notability, as it is not clear who are the most notable proponents of it. "Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh" is a publication by the same Samvel Karapetian. Karapetian is not sufficient to justify an existence of a stand alone article, considering blatant partisan nature of his publications. We need multiple independent and reliable sources to justify the existence of this article. Grandmaster 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, over the 5 or so years have you ever consulted even a single work by Karapetian to judge the quality of his output? Northern Artsakh is a recognised academic term used to define this region in an historical context. Are you disputing that an historical Artsakh existed? Are you disputing that its borders extended far beyond the modern borders of Nagorno Karabakh (which is nowadays also often called "Artsakh") on its northern side? Obviously not. So what alternative term do you think exists to define those northern parts, those parts that lie outside of what is now widely known as "Artsakh"? The terminology seems to be modern – but that will be because until the recent past there was no modern Artsakh (i.e. Nagorno Karabakh) for the medieval Artsakh to be confused with. Are we going to go around saying there is no such thing as "East Prussia" because all of it is now part of Poland, Russia, and Lithuania? Also, see page 119 of "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" by Robert H. Hewsen, 2001: "It was in this way that the east Siwnid state of Khachen or northern Artsakh, ruled by this fourth Siwnid line, rose to prominance during the 9th and 10th centuries". Hewsen here isn't talking about exactly the same territory of the article's Northern Artsakh (it does not include Gardman), but to a part of Artsakh whose southern section now lies inside the northern part of modern Nagorno Karabakh, and whose northern section now lies inside Azerbaijan. However, it does indicate a usage of the term. Meowy 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Artsakh. If this article is about the northern part of that region, then what is the point in its existence? If "Northern Artsakh" was some recognized entity like North Carolina, then it would deserve a stand alone article, but why have an article with only one reference and very little actual info? Hewsen clearly refers to the northern part of Artsakh, and not some distinct region of Northern Artsakh. Khachen and and Syunik are located within the traditional Artsakh/Karabakh region. So northern part of Artsakh is not the same as Northern Artsakh, the latter is claimed to be located outside of traditional Artsakh. Grandmaster 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expressed the concern some time ago. A very murky irredentist concept with virtually no coverage in non-Armenian sources (as could be verified both by Google test and in Google Books). The existing scratchy info could be accomodated within any relevant article. In fact Northern Artsakh just means northern Karabakh. Brandmeister^talk 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the name Artsakh is older than Karabakh. Please read more history books.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: The preceding discussion is conducted exclusively by people who appear to be involved in the nationalist disputes surrounding this topic area (see WP:ARBAA2). Can we please have some opinions by others? Sandstein 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would greatly appreciate third opinions. Maybe we can ask for third opinion on RFC board, or some similar place? Grandmaster 06:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This region is synonymous with Gardman, modern sources no longer use the ancient toponym of Gardman and instead refer to the region as Northern Artsakh.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 10:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gardman (or vice versa) – since Eupator is right that Artsakh and Gardman coincide, it's a content fork to have articles on both. The map in Gardman clearly shows the same geographic area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this article should be made a redirect, I'm not sure that it should be redirected to Gardman, as Gardman was part of another region called Utik. Even the Armenian primary source Anania Shirakatsi mentions that Gardman was a part of Utik (and not of Artsakh, or "Northern Artsakh"). The notion of "Northern Artsakh" is a modern invention by Samvel Karapetian. In the opinion of Karapetian "Northern Artsakh" included Utik, and many other regions up to the modern border of Azerbaijan with Georgia. But as I noted above, the ideas of one author do not merit a stand alone article. Grandmaster 11:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian media and various organizations that represent Armenian refugees ethnically cleansed from the region regularly use the term "Northern Artsakh", none of them are tied to Samvel Karapetyan in any shape or form: [29], [30], [31]. Since these territories lie outside of Artsakh for the most part and were not part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, obviously it's not merely a reference to the Northern region of Artsakh.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "Northern Artsakh" was a historic region, then what was Utik? "Northern Artsakh" clearly overlaps with Utik. The ancient primary sources do not mention any "Northern Artsakh", and neither do any prominent international experts on the ancient history of the region. I never saw any mention of "Northern Artsakh" in the works of Minorsky, Dowsett, Hewsen, etc. The main problem with this article is that no reliable third party academic sources could be found on the topic, and according to the WP:RS, "if no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This article have no prospects of expansion beyond the lead, because everything else is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as I explained above. Someone just dumped into the article the Russian Imperial and Soviet statistics which have nothing to do with "Northern Artsakh". If you remove all the WP:SYNTH from the article, then what's left is just one line from the lead, which is also unsourced, and that's what we have after 4 years of the article's existence. Grandmaster 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could find mentions of region in academic sources like Mutafian, Chorbajian and Croissant. They are prominent international experts. OptimusView (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Croissant does not use the term, the only mention of this combination of words in his book is the quote of a declaration by Armenian separatists, which says: They assume the obligation to represent the national interests of the Armenian population in northern Artsakh (NKAO), Shaumyan rayon, and Getashen districts. Source: Yerevan International Service, 3 December 1989. But as anyone can see from the above quote, the word northern does not start with a capital letter, which means that it refers to the northern part of Artsakh, and which for them is the territory of former NKAO, plus Shaumyan and Getashen are listed separately, while they are supposed to be a part of "Northern Artsakh". Same with Chorbajian and Mutafian, they mention "northern Artsakh", i.e. northern part of the region, but not the distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". Grandmaster 20:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croissant cites this term as he recognizes it. NA was enough distinct to have a prince (Sahl Smbatian) and to be a principality. OptimusView (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you write here that there are no reliable sources and quietly remove them from article. How a quoted text could be an original research? OptimusView (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"lord of northern Artsakh" does not mean that he was a ruler of a distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". If you search books, you can find some references to "northern Artsakh", but those are references to the northern part of Artsakh, not a distinct region of "Northern Artsakh". By the same token, the combination of words "southern Artsakh" can also be encountered, but that does not mean we should have an article on "Southern Artsakh". We don't need an occasional mention of northern part of Artsakh, we need multiple sources that would describe the distinct region of "Northern Artsakh", its boundaries, etc. So far nothing that could qualify as WP:RS has been provided. Grandmaster 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit: [32] is simply disruptive and is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Neither of the sources that you included in that revert mention Northern Artsakh. You cannot include in the article you personal interpretation of the sources, it is an original research. If you don't know what OR means, read the rule. According to the rules, OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Grandmaster 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article was nominated for deletion several times and the nominations were defeated. Hiosn (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Hiosn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebelle Bond

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines. Multiple nominations are all scene nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS to support required WP:N clauses. Article contains WP:OR and myspace WP:Linkspam BO | Talk 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2012 (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 List of The Young and the Restless characters (1980s). Consensus is that the notability guideline is not met, so the page should remain a redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Hall Rawlins

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

This is a character from a soap opera. A post at the help desk advised of an edit war, which I quelled by protecting the title rather than blocking multiple editors for 3RR. The war was over whether this should be a stand-alone article or a redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters (1980s). I have now searched for sources using Google Books and a News Archive, and found enough to verify a sentence or two but little else and not enough for notability, so I have taken this here seeking to determine whether this should remain a redirect or not so that further reversions are not just one side warring with another but are measured and actionable against consensus. Based on the lack of reliable sources I found, I think it should remain a redirect unless other evidence is provided. Because at the time of protection it was a redirect, you will need to look at the page history to see the content from past versions, e.g., this one (this is not, however, an RfD issue at heart which is why I've brought it here). If anyone thinks they can establish notability and wishes to edit, I will lift the protection but given the warring that was going on, I will leave it protected for the moment. I will inform everyone involved in the reversions and provide a link at the help desk post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Redirect it into the 1980s article. There is not enough sourced content for the character to warrant her own character page. There are current characters on the series that don't even warrant their own page per WP:SOAPS, WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY. There is no way this page will warrant anything other than a short description on the 1980s page, especially by an actress, whom by herself, fails to be large enough to be apart of the series. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agree with User:Musicfreak7676 Athleek123 05:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Musicfreak7676. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 07:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:51, 3 July 2012 (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 a separate article on relations between these 2 countries is not merited. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Grenada relations

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

fails WP:GNG. another Grenada example that fails notability. simply having a relationship or diplomatic recognition is not sufficient for notability. over 200 low notability bilaterals have been deleted. i could find no evidence of significant coverage of a relationship. most of these google news hits are multilateral references. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary entry, not an article. Nothing beyond large multilateral treaties. Nothing to suggest these two countries mean something major to each other. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salient details to main articles on the international relations of the countries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am for the retention of X-Y Relations articles as long as both nations are of sufficient size to justify the creation and development of such pieces. While a piece on the foreign relations of Grenada could no doubt be maintained, no adequate sources exist for the maintenance of freestanding X-Y Grenada articles, in my estimation. If there is material worth merging, merge it, but I'm guessing nothing of sufficient substance here. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself slightly: Grenada-Cuba relations and Grenada-United States relations are two that could definitely be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a big thing going on in Grenada at August time and it will have many agreement with the two nations, but I can't write it until the event finish. (Kylekieran (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

one new agreement doesn't mean notable relations. you seem to mistake actual relations being the same as notable relations. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a mistake because I found the fact and I reference it and also Grenada and Finland have a actual relations and also it said it on the offical government site. So remember this is a real true artcle with true facts and informations. (Kylekieran (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

having relations does not mean there is automatically a WP article, please read WP:N. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't notable. There is no need to have "Grenada-(every other nation) relations" articles in WP, just merge all the information worth keeping in to a single page Foreign relations of Grenada. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are worse articles about medieval priests and so on, this article isn't marking any relevant contribution from a contexualized source about the issue. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2012 (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 Field ration. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a redirect to Field ration has support. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reservestridsproviant

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

Fails WP:GNG. I almost couldn't find anything on it other than Wikipedia clones, but I did find one book (that doesn't seem to be based on Wikipedia) that mentioned it. Hardly enough coverage to justify an article. The article is completely unsourced, but I left it as is. Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't have an article without sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not one hit in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs a search in Atekst, but I don't have a subscription. I find a couple of mentions in the archives at Aftenposten and a couple of other mentions: 1 and 2 but nothing substantial. I can't find it in books either, which makes me think it may have previously had another name. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An Atekst search finds three hits, all which are just passing mentions and none which can be used to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway#Yummy Reservestridsproviant Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that this could not be covered in a larger article on soldier food. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Field ration, for example. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Field ration, merging anything that can be properly sourced. With no decent sources and so little to say in any case, there's no cause for an article. There'd be more justification for (sweet) Fanny Adams, but the Royal Navy's tinned mutton just got an entry at the end of her article. Once she was dead, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to field ration as there does not seem to be any notable coverage of the topic. A search in Atekst (newspaper archive) and the national library archives finds nothing but passing mentioning, mostly in dictionaries. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalia Barnes

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO. Oz ^talk 00:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she appears to pass MUSICBIO #2 (duet reached #31 in Australia) and maybe #12 (appeared on Australia's The Voice). She has been covered in multiple sources, and given her family and tv appearance I'm sure more could be found. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tin Lids on the basis that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles" and that she has no notable solo releases. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriuosly? Member of a notable band who has got much press independent of that band. Her album VOLUME 1 by Mahalia Barnes and The Soul Mates has been reviewed in major mainstream publications. Stewart, Paul (6 July 2008), "VOLUME 1 review", Sunday Herald Sun -- Apter, Jeff (4 July 2008), "CD Reviews", The Sydney Morning Herald -- "CD REVIEWS", Sunday Telegraph, 22 June 2008 -- Moran, Jonathon (22 June 2008), "CD reviews With Jonathon Moran", The Sunday Mail. She has recieved much coverage about her that has nothing to do with Tin Lids or The Voice, a small sample -- Gregory, Helen (11 November 2010), "Life's soundtrack singer", The Newcastle Herald -- "A double Barnes performance", Sunshine Coast Daily, 27 June 2008 -- Stewart, Paul (22 June 2008), "Soul sisters connect", The Sunday Mail -- Mickan, Kate (22 June 2008), "Mates inspire Mahalia's Soul", Sunday Mail -- Donovan, Patrick (22 June 2008), "Keeping it in the family", The Age. There is much more out there. Clearly notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. Significant solo career in addition to work with Barnes and Tin Lids. Moondyne (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (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.