Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 March >

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 delete. v/r - T P 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern California Solar Regatta

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

No reliable source coverage was provided or found for this new school competition. WP:TOOSOON --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The few references provided in article are primary. I find only primary or non-WP:RS sources from web searches. This competition is new and is not even scheduled to take place until May. WP is not a marketing tool. Fails WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: "Marketing Tool"? Really, we don't need any marketing and I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be an undeserved accusation and conclusion here that the posting is an attempt at marketing. For one thing, no money changes hands. If the article is deleted in these next few months then it will be re-posted next year at which time it will have become an historic event.

For the record, I will accept a determination of deletion at this time only on the basis of the event having not yet happened. The accusation of Hobbes Goodyear is without a trace of merit, and I will maintain that if the article for a similar event in Temecula, the Solar Cup, is a legitimate article, then so shall an article for the Northern California Solar Regatta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Solar Cup has taken place, what, ten times over the past decade? Your event: zero times. And the Solar Cup entry also lacks evidence of notability and, like your article, should be deleted, unless such evidence can be found.
You wrote this article, so how can you say no money is changing hands? One sponsor is the public school system--I assume that the school superintendent that you've name-checked in the article and the other school system employees involved are not volunteers. I also assume that "The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) was invited to collaborate in this event and became co-sponsors and took on the major tasks of hosting and organizing the event" means SMUD is coughing up some dough. Not sure what else they're getting, but here's what they are getting out of this WP entry:

a link to their company website
a mention that the regatta will be held at Rancho Seco Recreational Park, "managed by SMUD".
a link to a brochure for the event with their their logo prominently displayed at the top, and their name appearing elsewhere

Whether or not money is changing hands, whether or not the cause being promoted is good, bad, or indifferent, it doesn't matter: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." (see Advertising section of WP:NOTPROMO).
Despite all of this and despite your apparent connection to this event, I believe that you honestly consider this event to be important and meriting an encyclopedia entry here. So, I would encourage you to re-post this article as soon as you can provide substantial coverage of it from independent, reliable sources. But no sooner. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Bscottbscott sandbox until better sourcing can be found. I AGF the connected editor will add sources as they arise and resubmit this to mainpage, and I encourage that editor to go through WP:Articles for creation process to ensure the best possible result. Right now, WP:CRYSTAL applies. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Userfy is fine too. There is not any real coverage of this event I can find to argue its individual notability at this time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:01, 14 March 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. henrik•talk 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sessional GP

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

Tagged for lack of notability since December 2008, and seems to fail notability criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant category of British physician, with plenty of ghits from WP:RS and specialist sources available. Article is stubby, yes, although it has been improved since nomination. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with general practitioner. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several sources which seem to establish notability: [1] [2] and [3]. If we need to beef up this article, we can merge info from National Association of Sessional GPs, or add material on locum GPs as found in [4], [5], [6], and [7]. In any case, this seems like a fairly broad topic which we should be covering. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue work done since nomination. Adequate sources have been provided to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Failing keep, merge to GP. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cerebellum's rationale.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:02, 14 March 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) 16:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen M. Spence

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

Autobiographical article for a person of questionable notability. Majority of the links are to her own academic papers - no indications that they are notable. Of the rest, her claims of speaking and modeling could not be verified with the references provided. A Google news search on "Karen M. Spence" shows zero results. Standard search is inconclusive, given more than one "Karen M. Spence" out there. However, searches on "Karen M. Spence" "SEO expert" and "Karen M. Spence" "Paul Spence Consulting" both shows little outside this article or Spence's LinkedIn profile. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*User MikeWazowski is unfamiliar with google searching. Searching on two terms alone doesn't indicate notability. I don't see wiki policies that indicate that notability can be established by 2 search terms alone. There is more in the world than Google. Print publications are equally important. Supposedly Wiki doesn't show preference over online references but I am beginning to wonder if this is truly the case. Kmhistory (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my article. I am new to wiki and unclear about the 'wiki language'. I cited sources based on academic sourcing, not wiki sourcing. I am attempting to rectify the issues and am in no way being disruptive. Some sources are print sources and not available online. I have provided the citations. Additionally, I am considered to be notable in the archaeological community and my ideas are vanguard regarding the commercialization of forgotten sites. Archaeology has not really caught up to the 21st century and I am pioneering online resources for the field! I have presented in Italy on the topic in a public forum, on television and will be doing so again this month. I am working to get this article inline with your guidelines and promise that I am not being disruptive. I am surprised at the editor's accusatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Per the nomination, the links provided are not references demonstrating notability; they are either the subject's papers or self penned articles. I can't find anything to suggest she has notability sufficient to meet the baseline standard. QU ^TalkQu 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Notable in her field. Articles have been widely distributed to scholars and non-scholars as well. I frequently research and present on the subject of forgotten or lesser known archaeological sites. My SEO work targets Asian/mostly Chinese/ audiences. It is very common for SEO's not to attach their name to websites because the Google Algorithm is opposed to the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*DO NOT DELETE. I have used Karen Spence as an SEO for my medical device/diagnostics company. I heard of her through colleagues in the industry who had used her and was very satisfied with the results. She is very well known in her industry and considered to be a notable and sought after professional. Our confidentiality agreements prevent her from putting her name on my website. This is standard practice in the medical industry. V. Wilson, Head of Marketing, UK.— 72.130.137.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Interesting note - the above comment, allegedly from a "V. Wilson" at an unnamed company in the UK, was actually posted from an IP in San Diego, CA, where Spence lives. Curious. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this vote is likely a sockpuppetry violation and should be ignored. I've opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kmhistory. —Eustress ^talk 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit by the IP, in which she identifies herself as Kmhistory, I've gone and struck this comment completely, as it is fraudulent. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The closest I see to her being in a newspaper is the letter to the editor she wrote to the Pacific Sun—which, up until a few minutes ago, was mentioned in the article as her being published as an advocate of the FDA. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~DO NOT DELETE~~. (struck, user has already !voted above) Actually, I have a long history of advocacy for the FDA dating to 1999. Many of my SEO activities relate to medicine/medical devices/biomarkers thus the FDA is an organization for which I have a strong opinion. This was but one example. The Pacific Sun is a PRINT newspaper in Marin County and yes, that letter was published IN PRINT. THEY ALSO ARCHIVE ONLINE. Thus the citation is correct and your assertion of 'closest to being printed' is completely inaccurate. Prior to posting snarky comments, please do your research. I am happy to send a copy of the PRINTED article to you in order to 'verify'. Kmhistory (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Pacific Sun wrote an article about you, why did you not cite that in the article instead of citing the opinion letter? Claiming to be published on a subject based on an op-ed piece is a little overinflated. I've had recipes in the newspaper, but I would never claim to be a published advocate of vegetarian food. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of a 'little overinflated' is simply that- just your opinion. I never claimed that the Pac Sun wrote an article about me. Where are you getting this idea? The statement in the article is factually correct and I believe you are targeting me for my FDA views. There is evidence to support that I am an advocate of the FDA, the Pac Sun PRINTED article is but one. It is not the main theme of my article.Kmhistory (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did say, "I am happy to send a copy of the PRINTED article to you in order to 'verify'." So is there an article or just your op-ed letter? —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am unable to find any of the coverage in secondary sources required to meet WP:GNG. A collection of op-ed pieces and non-peer-reviewed works, as well as photographs of the subject without any critical commentary on her modeling career, do not qualify as any sort of reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability threshold and article is pure self-promotion—she even included a link to her LinkedIn profile on the page. —Eustress ^talk 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little but self-promotion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS and no actual claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Pure self-promotion. LeSnail (talk) 21:05, 9 March 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 some. Keep Thelma and Eunice, and merge the rest to List of Mama's Family characters v/r - T P 01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Harper

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

No out-of-universe notability or sources. Every single sentence is in-universe plot summary and/or informal tone ("The milquetoast finally grew a spine."). Redirects undone with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but I see no point in "fixing" as the articles are beyond repair and utterly lacking in real-world notability. Previous AFD closed in 2007 as "keep", but articles have been completely static ever since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No indication of notability outside of in-universe material. Lengthy plot-ish details and POV garbage do not make encyclopedia articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted everyone who participated in the past AFD to inform them of this sequel. Dream Focus 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thelma Harper. The character was on two different television shows, popular enough on the The Carol Burnett Show to be the main character of a new show that lasted 6 seasons. Character was also used on Hollywood Squares and Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? as well as elsewhere. After all these years, the character is still seen. Dream Focus 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep Eunice Harper Higgins, as sources have now been found. The rest can be merged to a character list article. Dream Focus 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles consist purely of plot summaries. No sources provided to indicate real world notability. Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thelma Harper has now has the sources to avoid deletion. The rest do not. Jay32183 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of Mama's Family characters, which does not currently appear to exist, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging several non-notable items to a list does not make them notable, nor does it take care of the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every single notable series, television, game, or otherwise, has a character list page. You always make the same argument to try to delete these pages or as many entries on them as possible. List articles do not need to meet the same requirements as regular articles do. Dream Focus 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'm playing the ignore all rules card. I'm working off of existing precedent (separation of characters into separate articles from notable series (Mama's Family in this case)) and standing by my commentary from about five years ago in the previous AFD discussion. I am not opposed to merging into a central article as per commentary by user:Jclemens. The simple fact that the articles have not changed in the past five years, beyond marginal changes, may just owe itself to the fact that the series has not been running for nearly thirty years outside of reruns - and therefore, no further character development has occurred. Also add to the fact that notability does not disappear. I cite IAR, though, because of the age of the series: it may be difficult, at best, to find citations about these individuals, owing to that detail. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're claiming notability, where are the sources? Jay32183 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into List of Mama's Family characters, do not keep as stand-alone articles in their present states. These characters may or may not be notable for individual articles, but the fact is, no-one bothered to improve the articles to pass WP:NOT#PLOT over the last five years. If someone wants to work on the Mama's Family characters, fine, he may do so on the character list; if not, then at least these extremely poor stand-alone articles are out of sight and do not encourage the creation of other poor character articles. Win-win. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Merge all per above. I initiated the first AfD for all these pages a few years ago, and my feelings are still the same--despite my being a huge fan of the show, these characters simply don't have enough real-world notability (if any at all) to merit their own pages, and the lack of any improvement on any of them since then attests to that. As I stated in the previous AfD, I'd possibly support Thelma Harper having her own page, since she is somewhat notable outside the show (in Vicki Lawrence's Two-Woman Show and her appearances on Hollywood Squares, for instance), but none of the others are notable enough. Yes, the show is popular and noteworthy, but that by itself does not automatically establish notability for its individual characters. --Crazy Legs KC 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep Thelma, and I'm sure Ten Pound Hammer did nothing on the rest to confirm they weren't notable, but they'll get recreated anyway when no one's looking.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That whooshing sound you just heard was the assumption of good faith flying out the window. Any that are "recreated when no one's looking" will be speedied in full view. (Incidentally, you didn't give a reason to keep Thelma.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPH does good work around here no question, but he doesn't always do a good WP:BEFORE. I've been around long enough to know that. Articles like this do get recreated (not by me) and not caught, I don't know how it happens but it does. Probably because around 900 articles survive creation every day.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on your assumption about TPH in this instance, you've just agreed with the deletion of all of them except Thelma Harper -- I think, it's hard to tell without any reasoning given. (Yeah, people might recreate them. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, unless you're arguing for salt now...) You still haven't provided a reason for your Keep on Thelma Harper (or the others, if you're !voting Keep on them too). - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have no view on the characters other than Thelma Harper because I have not done the research required to determine which of the other characters in the show are notable. This show, though a commercial success, was a piece of crap in my personal opinion so I don't feel like engaging in that endeavor. Editors like AlbertGray who worked on these articles over five years ago have departed wikipedia, likely never to return as our editor core continues to shrink. As for Thelma, she should be kept she meets WP:GNG. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, who loved questionable pop culture, anyone who doesn't know Thelma Harper "is a heathen."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Harper is 100% unsourced. Given that the GNG requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would be downright amazing if it passed the GNG in its present form. Please astound me by explaining. As Lincoln observed, what we call something does not change what it is. Thelma Harper is an unreferenced plot summary that fails every notability guideline that I can think of, other than WP:ILIKEIT. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for cleanup. Under your rationale, you would delete extremely notable articles that are just shitty in their current form, and we have tons of those. You put in an hour improving the article first, and then so will I. Otherwise, just stop it, heathen.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: I don't expect the article to be cleaned up, I expect it will be deleted. That's exactly what AfD is for. I expect it to be deleted because there was no evidence of real-world notability in the article and I was unable to locate any. As I do not believe there is any such notability to be found, the onus is on anyone who claims there is such notability to support it with reliable sources. Finally, I prefer the less POV "atheist". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you couldn't find sources for Thelma, you should quit wikipedia, you are harming the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read "evidence of real-world notability" as "sources" you should get your eyes checked. Let me re-word that for you: "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." Yeah, I see the "sources". Trimming the article down to material supported by them, we get "Mama Thelma Harper, a cynical stereotypical geezer, was Vicki Lawrence's most popular character.", followed by all four sources. Then, it's on with the in-universe plot summary. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I believe the burden of proof for notability rests on those who feel a subject is notable, not those who think it is not. If someone can establish notability for these characters by showing that they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (ie, sources other than the show itself), then by all means they may stay. If not, than per policy, they should be either deleted or merged. --Crazy Legs KC 14:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer's rationale. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Thelma harper. For the others, Delete, oppose a merge if the information doesn't get sourced at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though probably as a merged article. The information about their role in the show is taken as it should be from the work itself, the preferred source for such material. As significant characters in a major show, they should get some sort of coverage--though how mucv\h is something that is much harder to decide. A delete nomination or !vote here is saying the should not get mentioned at all, which has no basis in policy. And if the are mentioned, they need at least a redirect. Abd they do not all have the same importance, so the group nomination is improper. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A delete !vote does not say they should not be mentioned. We mention a whole lot of ideas, people, places and things that do not have their own articles. The show is a primary source which we approach with caution. Existence in the show is a given, but provides no evidence of notability, which is the issue here. For example, Rosebud is obviously in Citizen Kane and is discussed in the article (with far better sources than those recently added to Thelma Harper, BTW). We do not, however, have an article on it. In fact, we have only one article on any character, object, ___location or idea from Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane. While it needs better sourcing, that article contains far more than the in-universe biographies present in the articles we're discussing here. We have sources speculating Kane was a stand-in for Hearst. We have others arguing Kane contained elements of Welles. We have sources discussing comparisons to Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. Oh, yeah, and a biography of Kane too, which could stand to be trimmed, taken out-of-universe and given some cited depth. Yes, Charles Foster Kane needs work, but compare it the Thelma Harper, the "best" of this batch. (If you feel the group nomination is out of order, you'll need to provide some reason they shouldn't all share the same fate, something along the lines of, "Thelma Harper is an unsourced, in-universe, plot-ish biography and should be deleted. Alberta Meechum provides meaningful coverage of one of central characters of the 20th century and is well-sourced to peer reviewed journals and should be kept.") - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thelma. She appeared on multiple TV shows over four decades. Per Dream and Milo. CallawayRox (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, she did. That is not the point. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish real world notability for the character independent of the show. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One hour, Summer, come on, it won't kill you. I promise. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your flat assertion of "is too notable..." is not enough to have me doubt what my research has already proven to me. Showing that there is significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability independent of the in-universe garbage is your job now. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my job, its everyone's job. The character of Thelma Harper is notable; if it gets deleted, the world is worse off.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It is your job if you believe there is such coverage as no one else seems to have found the coverage you seem to believe exists. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its everyone's job. Everyone who cares about knowledge, that is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eunice Harper Higgins. I'm curious what search strategies editors have been using to research notability of these subjects, as I discovered with very little effort using Google three good book sources that discuss this character in detail, not just passing mentions. I added those citations, but others (who have access to the text through Google preview) may want to expand the article further, as I added only a little of what is available. I also cited a newspaper article from The Boston Globe, found offline, which discusses the character in detail. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: There's also a full article in The New York Times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, no one is looking. There are no search strategies. Its a hunger lust for deletion. Eunice is notable too, no doubt, but I have only looked at Thelma, adding 11 references to it already, though I could probably add 100 non-duplicate sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People seeking deletion do not need to show there are no sources. People wanting to add, keep, or restore must show that sources are available and include them. The sources you found are meaningless if you do not add them to the article. Jay32183 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"People seeking deletion do not need to show there are no sources." They need to unless they just like to delete things and destroy knowledge. If you bring an AfD and don't do any work to see if the subject is notable, you should be banned from wikipedia for life, imho.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't understand how Wikipedia works. What I stated is official Wikipedia policy. The burden of evidence falls to inclusion. That's what sources are for. There are so many policies and guidelines saying sources must be provided; How can you complain that people are pointing out that this fails those policies and guidelines? Sources are required for content to appear on Wikipedia. If you want the content get the sources. Jay32183 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - if you don't follow it, you don't deserve to be an editor on wikipedia. You're twisting policy to advocate for the deletion of notable subject articles. AfD is not a tool to get people who actually do shit around here to do things at your bidding. As I noted above, if you didn't know Thelma Harper was notable, you're a heathen.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, I have to say good job sourcing Thelma's article so far, but can we please refrain from swearing and name-calling? That's not the way to get people to see your perspective. The citations you've added have convinced me that Thelma probably should be kept, but you haven't yet defended any of the rest--do you think they are some or all of them are notable and worthy of keeping, or do you agree that most of them probably should be deleted/merged? --Crazy Legs KC 03:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But name calling and swearing is FUN, grandma!!! Especially when they are wro.... OW OW OW MY EAR THAT HURTS. harummphh. Ahh, I haven't looked at any of the rest and frankly don't have time to. I chose Thelma because I knew she was notable. I see someone else tackled Eunice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thelma, Merge the rest. Thelma is a character definitely notable for more than just a single show, with decades of appearances, a book (Mama for President: Good Lord, Why Not?), etc. Merging the rest would be more in line with out other TV character coverage though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I say that the Thelma Harper article has been improved enough to avoid deletion. The rest, however, I still think should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eunice and Thelma (obvious keeps). I'd also suggest keeping Ed if there was more to the article, but for now it should be merged with the rest (Per WP:SS). And speaking of which: Merge the rest to List of Mama's Family characters. But actually do the merge, and don't just redirect and forget. - jc37 01:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also withdrawing Eunice, which I didn't notice had been improved. The rest still stand. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"improved" shouldn't matter. This is a wiki. - jc37 06:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eunice per improvement by Paul. CallawayRox (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's nothing in these secondary character articles that isn't already in the main article. Oh, and there's the notability factor. Pinkadelica ^♣ 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thelma and Eunice, Redirect the rest. The nominator was quite reasonable to redirect these in the first place... the characters (with a couple of exceptions) are clearly not notable enough for standalone articles, but redirects preserve the edit history and these are reasonable search terms for the show. 28bytes (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why Vint Harper is not on this list? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked it. He's there now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh oh, seven more days now! just kidding. i think we have best consensus we are going to get. Keep Thelma and Eunice, redirect/merge the rest into a list.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I hadn't thought of Eunice as notable before, but I now see that she is. However, I don't know if a separate character list is really necessary--the main article already includes a character/actor list with a brief description of each, which I think is enough. I really don't see any need to go into longer "biographies" for each of the characters, if there's no real-world commentary to complement it. So my vote would go to just redirecting them all (except Thelma and Eunice) back to the main show article. Thoughts from anyone else? --Crazy Legs KC 04:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thelma and Eunice, Redirect all others to Mama's Family. My first choice would be for all characters to be merged into List of.... However, a reasonable case has be made that the Lawrence/Burnett characters have sufficient durability as proven in RS to keep. The rest of this drek is merely excessive detail and clear OR. Someone had to watch much of this stuff to get all the detail included. Ick. As opposed to merging excessive detail, and since main page has a perfectly adequate character list, redirect. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 14 March 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. waggers (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATM FA President's Cup Team

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

Previously deleted via PROD, unnotable and unreferenced article. Cloudz 679 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Cloudz 679 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As already stated, there is no indication any of these ~~competitions~~ teams meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they're teams (despite their peculiar titles). Mattythewhite (talk) 18:18, 11 March 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inxaniety

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

Wikipedia ain't a dictionary, plain and simple. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; I'm not even sure it is a word. Shanata (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Unsupported by Google hits on Web, Books or Scholar. First and only edit of the author. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:54, 3 March 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. waggers (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oolone

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

Search engine which has been launched about two months ago. Article fails to establish notability; most of the references are either to the website itself, to various blogs, or completely irrelevant. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find reference to 'age of site' being a factor in eligibility for an article. Article establishes notability with reference to reputable, independent source which covers the topic directly and in detail (as per requirements) Jonquilljones (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reputable, independent sources? All I see are the site itself and personal blogs. AND ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to assert notability, sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the second source from thenextweb Jonquilljones (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one is fine, but there just isn't much of anything else yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Debate moved to talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 9 March 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. waggers (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wet & Wild: Slippery When Wet

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

Just another installment in a defunct non-notable softcore porn series. No significant coverage. No reliable independent sourcing. What few other Playboy videos had articles have already been deleted; this will empty the relevant category completely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article here. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:42, 7 March 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. waggers (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twistgrip

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

At 15:18, 3 March 2012‎ was prodded by User:Ahunt: "Non-notable subject. In researching this I could not find suitable refs. The term is used in many different ways but any refs found provided nothing more than a dictionary definition at very best; most refs located were mere passing mentions. As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary this article has little scope for becoming more than a dictionary definition, even if sourced." But twistgrips are an important item, at least to motorcyclists, and surely there is more than a dictdef to be said about twistgrips, particularly by motorcyclists. Page Twistgrip has many incoming links, and thus some sort of page is needed here: see Special:WhatLinksHere/Twistgrip. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - While it is a bit unusual for the editor who started an article to nominate it for deletion at AFD, I can't really add any more to my original PROD nomination. I have not been able to find refs that say more than that twistgrips exist. This doesn't make notability requirements and reduces the article to a dictionary definition. Just because other articles have redlinks doesn't mean the subject is notable and an alternative is to delete this article and then remove the redlinks. If anyone can source a "History of twistgrips" or some other ref that would allow the article to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition I would be happy to see it retained. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added some early history of the twist grip throttle with refs. I think an ideal solution would be to merge Twist grip and maybe Motorcycle handlebar into a broader article on Motorcycle controls that explains the standardized layout of motorcycle throttles, clutch controls, shift levers, light horn and turn signal switches, and brakes. In particular there is a gap in tracing the history of how these controls went from the chaotic and arbitrary arrangements of most of the 20th century to the international standard layout found since the early 1970s. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like what you have added. The only point is that its doesn't address non-motorcycle uses as mentioned in the lead para. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove mention of non-motorcycle uses and refer readers to Helicopter flight controls and Shifter (bicycle part) for those subjects. The relationship is too superficial to cover in one article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, I see. Based on your improvements and that clarification then I will change my opinion to "keep". - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twist grip throttles have been used for numerous types of vehicles and engines including small boats, snowmobiles and locomotives. Twist grips may also be used other types of device such as the zoom control for a movie camera. These usages are all documented in numerous sources. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 March 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 to delete. A diversity of opinions are expressed below but no consensus emerges from them. Some, at least, of this material probably belongs on Wikipedia, but the article should probably be renamed and perhaps rewritten for style and clearer sourcing. On the other hand, (selective) merging to the articles on the sonnets of the individual authors has also been suggested. None of these options requires deletion and so further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch's and Shakespeare's Sonnets

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

Original research, full of POV statements, hardly any references to reliable sources. I suggested a merge at Talk:Sonnet, but no one replied. On second thoughts, there is nothing worth merging in the article in its current state. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we already have articles on Shakespeare's sonnets and Petrarchan sonnet, and the article listed for deletion does not justify having another article on these topics. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's too much original research, we already have Shakespeare's sonnets and Petrarchan sonnet and a redirect would not be helpful to readers. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which bit's the original research, then, considering the article Ovid, Petrarch, and Shakespeare's Sonnets by Gordon Braden, professor of Renaissance Literature, that is cited in the article? Please name the novel theories or novel ways of addressing this subject not in established scholarship that the article has. That's what original research is, remember. I should caution the unwary that it will look very silly, in the face of things like Braden, Billone 2012 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBillone2012 (help), Roe 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRoe2006 (help), and Leishman 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLeishman2005 (help), to simply assert that no-one and no encyclopaedia has ever mentioned Petrarch and Shakespeare in the same breath before. A one-sentence mention-original-research-and-hope-no-one-calls-me-on-it rationale just won't cut it here.
  - Billone, Amy C. (2012). "Sonnet". In Burwick, Frederick; Moore Goslee, Nancy; Long Hoeveler, Diane (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Romantic Literature. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405188104.
  - Roe, John (2006). "The Sonnet in the Renaissance". In Kastan, David Scott (ed.). The Oxford encyclopedia of British literature. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195169218.
  - Leishman, J. B. (2005). "Shakespeare and Petrarch". Themes and Variations in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Routledge. ISBN 9780415352956.
- Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything below the 'Ovidian Influences in the Sonnets' heading is supported only by references to primary sources. Perhaps such observations are supported by good secondary sources (one could say the same of all original research), but the article has been here for several years and no-one has added them. Nobody is asserting that no-one has 'mentioned Petrarch and Shakespeare in the same breath before', so I'm not sure why you raise this point. I suppose the question is whether the secondary sources justify having an article which compares Petrarch and Shakespeare -- in that case, we might be able to use the small amount of useful content in this article as a starting point. So, would you support a move to something like Comparison of Petrarch and Shakespeare's sonnets? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I raised the point because I knew ahead of time from what you both wrote that neither of you knew what original research constitutes, and wanted to stave off the sillier arguments to that end before they even began. (I've seen a lot of very silly arguments about what original research is, over the years.) Whether something is original research isn't determined by looking at footnotes. It's determined by comparing what the article says against what established scholarship on the subject says. The article makes it relatively easy here by citing the sources that the article's author very clearly used. Picking a paragraph from that section at random, paragraph 6, and checking it against Braden alone — of the sources cited, let alone of the reams of scholarly literature on this subject — one can easily find that Braden supports the content of the paragraph on pages 103 and 104. I'm not going to go over this paragraph by paragraph, because you haven't. You've just looked at the article only and attempted to make a determination of what's original research solely by what <ref>...</ref> tags there are in it, without even reading the literature cited. That's wrongheaded. For starters, a lot of Wikipedia isn't written that way.
      As to the name: Notice that the article was originally entitled Shakespeare and petrarch, just like Leishman 2005. Clearly there's flexibility here. The right place to raise the question is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature where people who work on this sort of thing can decide how best to slot this in to some sort of overall framework.
      As to the bogus no-one-has-added-anything argument: Well neither have you. Even here, you approach the article entirely superficially, without even reading the sources that it already handed to you on a platter. Make yourself not a part of that problem, and do what we — as people who claim to be encyclopaedists — are all supposed to do: find, read, evaluate, and use scholarly sources. I've done paragraph 6 for you.
      Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very persuasive argument -- clearly the article is more salvageable than I thought. So I suppose my current view is keep the article, with the ultimate aim of either refocussing it as a comparison of Petrarch and Shakespeare, or producing content which can be merged into the article we already have on sonnets by those authors. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't imagine why this is here. We have too few editors writing about literature and too few well-written articles about literature; we don't need to get rid of the ones we have. At any rate, I think Uncle G made the point, so per Uncle G. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Petrarch or Ovid had an important influence on Shakespeare's sonnets, then that can be discussed in the article on Shakespeare's sonnets, which is hardly so long that it needs to be split into separate articles. Why do we need an article on 'Petrarch's and Shakespeare's Sonnets' when we already have articles on Petrarch's and Shakespeare's Sonnets? (But see my comments about a move as a compromise) NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator tells us that he came here because no-one responded to his merge proposal. That's not a reason to delete and the nominator now seems to agree that we can do more by means of ordinary editing and so has effectively withdrawn. Warden (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an original piece comparing two previous entries. There is no point to delete this page if it provides a knowledgeable comparison, which it does. Why delete something that provides useful information backed up by many sources (this article is full cited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.225.20 (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I may as well quote the keep !voter right above me, since his or her argument actually supports deletion. I'd also like to ask that the speedy keep !voter withdraw their vote or at least add a real argument, since it's very clearly intentionally missing the point of the deletion arguments.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you think is being missed? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that an editor once feeling an article should be merged before deciding that the material is not suitable for a merger is an absurd reason for such a discussion to be procedurally closed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case the nominator has since changed opinion again. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 10 March 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 Withdrawn by Nominator with no other comments. GB fan 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PsyMontréal Psychologists Company

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

Apparently a recreation of a speedily deleted article (originally tagged by NawlinWiki back on Feb. 5) this page does reference several articles that have been published by members of this firm in industry publications. But I can find no little coverage about this firm, which is the benchmark for notability. What's more, the article is pretty promotional in tone and I have flagged the username as promotional in nature at ARV. I am AfDing the article, rather than re-speedying or prodding it, so as to make a db-repost possible next time, should this nomination succeed and the article re-appear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC) WITHDRAWN The creator continues to cite references on my User talk page that I believe could establish notably for this company, so much so that I believe what is needed is to clean up and fix the article, not delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sloppy work from me on this nom, and for that, I apologize. The final reference in the article is a third-party WP:RS, an interview with one of the members of this company our main French-language all news channel. The creator (under a new username) has responded at length on my Talk page, and I'll just paste his or her full comments below. I suppose the key to retaining might be making the case that this firm meets WP:CORP (and not WP:NONPROFIT, as it is a commercial venture) because of the Quebec government's referencing of their work, especially in such areas as Motivational Interviewing, mentioned several times. (Or if that's not the case, there may well be content that could be merged there). Or Quebec's mental health system. Here are the creator's comments: Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shawn for taking the time to review the article I created!

I am new to Wikipedia and certainly want to contribute in the best way possible.

I apologize my username was promotional (I did not realize it, due to my inexperience) and have thus changed it to JMDDO123.

I also apologize that the article appears promotional in nature. If you would please let me know which parts you found were promotional and I will make sure to modify the language ASAP.

But most importantly, I notice that you mentioned in the discussion about deleting PsyMontreal that all the articles are published by members of PsyMontreal. I apologize if the way I wrote the references made it seem that way, but in reality, that is not the case.

I have thus reviewed each of the 8 references to help you distinguish between those that are from members of PsyMontreal versus those that are independent:

Reference 1 is a 46 page document and Reference 2 is a 114 page document published by the government, which are not members of PsyMontreal, and each only includes a 6 page Annex written by a member of PsyMontreal-- but the body of the documents makes reference to the importance of prevention and the relevance of Motivational Interviewing for health behavior change, justifying the importance of the trainings in Motivational Interviewing (which had been done by PsyMontreal) by multiple authors within each document.

Reference 3 is a 161 page government document, not written by a member of PsyMontreal, and also highlighting the importance of the Motivational Interviewing trainings within the context of the government health promotion plans.

References 4 to 7 are articles written by members of PsyMontreal, published in the official journals of professional orders of various health care fields. Being journals of official professional orders, the articles cannot be promotional in nature. These references are meant to demonstrate the contributions of PsyMontreal in helping the members of these many health related Orders (sort of like listing publications from an author).

The Reference 8 is again not associated in any way to any member of PsyMontreal-- it is an RDI Santé news episode that covered the contributions of PsyMontreal's trainings in the Quebec Health care field. RDI is the French equivalent of the CBC News Network. If you would watch it (the episode runs 24:44mins, but they talk about PsyMontreal and Motivational Interviewing from 3:14min to 14:45mins).

Thus, if these additional descriptions clarify the nature of the references, would it be possible for you to mention in the discussion page that not all citations are from members of PsyMontreal, but that there are some that are independent of the firm? I would hope that would help other contributors to make a better judgment of the Notability of the PsyMontreal article.

Also, should I mention the above info in the deletion discussion pages? If so, which one? I notice there are 3 pages...

Thanks again for guiding me in the writing of my first article!

- - The creator has since offered further comments on my User talk page, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 4 March 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 Angolan Air Force#Accidents and incidents. v/r - T P 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Angolan Air Force crash

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS ...William 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No rationale given by the nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a well-known consensus, spelled out on WP:AIRCRASH, that user:Lugnuts should have consulted before commenting. Nothing in this article gets past WP:GNG or WP:Events. Speciate (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully submit that WP:AIRCRASH is not well known and there is no such prerequisite for posting an opinion here. Please just remark on the article and be WP:CIVIL toward other editors. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ExplanationLugnuts is familar with WP:AirCrash. He has contributed to other aviation deletion discussions. What happened was a series of misunderstandings due to a clumsy edit of mine. I nominated the article for deletion, and then in a separate edit put in the wikiproject links. During that second edit, I accidentally deleted my rationale. Lugnuts came along and made his comment before I fixed this AFD. In the summary of my fix edit I said what happened. Speciate came along after my fix edit and saw the rationale but didn't check the history of this AFD before writing his comment. BTW right after I did my fix edit I notified Lugnuts at his talk page about why the rationale was missing. Does everyone understand what happened now?...William 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sheer magnitude of 17 deaths makes this very notable. Easily passes WP:GNG. Simply because of the non-guide wp:aircrash nuance of this being "military" as opposed to "commercial" is not convincing to restrict inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is detailed analysis in secondary sources that makes things notable. Show me such sources. Speciate (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge and redirect to either Angolan Air Force or List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) - 17 deaths does not make an incident notable, unless it is the most deaths ever in a crash in a particular nation, or that a Wikinotable (= blue link) person was killed in the crash. Neither applies here. (Also, arguing that WP:AIRCRASH isn't relevant because it "isn't a guide/policy" is picayune; WP:ATA is also "just an essay" yet nobody peeps when it is brought up in AfDs.) WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events") and WP:PERSISTENCE ("Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.") are policies, though - and aside from the initial spurt of news, there is no continuing coverage of this accident and no verifiable effects on operations or procedures in the aviation world caused by this accident. Therefore, this article fails WP:N per WP:PERSISTENCE, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Deletion is clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Wikipedia WP:LAWYER and bureaucracy might conjure up in fifth paragraph down, sub-clause three etc., if an incident where 17 people lost their lives isn't notable, then the minutiae of Wikipeda's labyrinth of multi-paged self-contradictory "rules" are way out of line with reality. --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound heartless, but...how much will this accident be remembered a year from now? Ten? Fifty? As "a plane crashed at X, Y people died," if that. There is no notability for anything more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seventeen deaths is sufficient for notability. And before anyone starts quoting "rules" at me, just let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense trumps non-existent "rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without rules, there is anarchy. Just arguing you don't like the rules is no argument against deletion at all. Tell me why this crash needs an article other than the total of people who died in it? Anyone famous? Was it covered alot in the press?

FYI, an aviation incident with 14 fatalities[8] was deleted less than two months ago. Fatalities doesn't automatically make an incident notable. BTW that incident had at least a half dozen different articles written on it. This incident has gotten no coverage in six months or more and sparse when it happened. The crash is tragic but its forgotten or getting to that point already....William 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are about opinions, not rules, and I have given my opinion. It is up to the closer to take that into consideration, not to you to tell me that my opinion is not valid because you happen to disagree with it. "Without rules there is anarchy": Sadly someone else who has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia in general and AfDs in particular! Guidelines are not rules; they are guidelines. If they were rules we would not be having AfD discussions; it would just be left to admins to delete any article that broke the "rules". Happily this is not the case, so we have these discussions. I really am getting tired of explaining this and I really shouldn't need to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why other than the fatalaties makes this encyclopedic? Is there anything historical about it that deserves more than a footnote? Just saying rules and guidelines don't apply here isn't a valid argument....William 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said I considered it encyclopaedic because of the number of fatalities. That is a perfectly reasonable opinion. It doesn't need any further explanation just because you claim it does or because you don't agree with it. I find it rather amusing that your "rationale" for nominating this article for deletion amounted to three words, but because you included a (highly subjectively interpreted) section of a policy you think this somehow makes your opinion more valid than mine. Another increasingly common attitude, sadly, that quoting a guideline or policy somehow makes one's opinion more relevant (even if said guideline or policy is highly open to interpretation). With high-handed attitudes like these, it's no wonder that people are getting discouraged from writing articles. They know that someone will come along and with three words attempt to destroy all their work. Note that I am not including patent rubbish which deserves to be deleted here; only perfectly reasonable articles that one individual does not approve of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been the consensus, over a large number of AfDs, that a large number of fatalities does not confer notability, except in the cases I mentioned above. And the article fails two policies, as well as the applicable notability standard for the type of event in question. WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that this article should not be kept, as, despite 17 fatalities, it is - especially for Africa, sadly - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is a personal opinion piece that has attracted much more opposition than support. And how many African deaths to you equate to a European or North American death? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "how many African deaths equate a [white] death". It has everything to do with the fact that aviation accidents that kill numbers of people in the 10+ range occur, sadly, more often in Africa. And if WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is 'controversial', how about WP:ROUTINE? There is, sadly, nothing about this accident that distinguishes it from any number of other accidents that either do not have articles or have been deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:AIRCRASH. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having people that was killed warrants inclusion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see which of the three points included at WP:INDISCRIMINATE the article fits in.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Including every crash that killed people, which your comment indicated is your criterion for keeping this, would be 'an indiscriminate collection of information'. See also WP:AIRCRASH's criterion for military flights which this fails on all counts. That said, a merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) might be appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As per your comments above, if we apply WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, this article should be deleted too. Surprisingly, the article was kept, even when there were no fatalities involved.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's quite possible it should be deleted; it's also quite possible that it will wind up passing point #3 of the airliner section of WP:AIRCRASH (changes in procedures/AD issuance). This, however, is not an airliner, but a military aircraft - and, regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete. The accident is already included in the “Accidents and incidents” section of the parent article. That's enough for me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad but just another military transport accident not suitable for a standalone article, it would really need to have killed somebody important or hit something important to get a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no particular opinion on whether this incident needs its own standalone article as opposed to being redirected back to Angolan Air Force#Accidents and incidents, but one of the dead seems mildly notable, so I went ahead and created an article on him: Kalias Pedro. Eric Baer (talk) 09:57, 15 March 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 withdrawal per the sources found by Bushranger. Clearly I was looking in all the wrong places. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Atlanship SA

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

Non-notable shipping company. After trudging through all of the Google News hits written in the various languages spoken in Switzerland, I can safely conclude that there isn't any significant coverage of Atlanship. The referenced articles, external links, and Google News hits all revolve around The Orange Sun, a juice transportation ship, with Atlanship mentioned in passing as the operator of the ship. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because Atlanship's notability can't be inherited from The Orange Sun. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page under construction. More information are available now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apm2891 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Apm2891 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

very interesting to see how my morning juice come from! The references match with the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superwoman112 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Superwoman112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neither of your posts have addressed my concerns with notability. Again, the sources don't cover Atlanship itself, but its ships, with the company mentioned in passing as the operator of the ships. In order for the Atlanship page to be kept, we will need to see direct coverage of Atlanship itself. Read over Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." Furthermore, because Superwoman112 has made no contributions outside of this discussion, I suspect that she may be a meatpuppet. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of whom? Or do you mean sockpuppet? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of Apm32891. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - possible WP:COI concerns asisde, the company appears to be notable - references including Lloyd's Maritime Directory, the Fairplay World Shipping Directory, and The Shipping Revolution: the modern merchant ship are found through a quick check. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for sources, but if I missed some significant coverage of the company itself, then I might withdraw. I'll look at those you mentioned. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were in Google Books; unfortunatly, none have views beyond snippets, but there're enough to make me certain enough that the ~~truth~~sources isare out there to !vote keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a shipping company with a multi-million pound turnover? Running 6 major ships? Supported by Bushranger's sources? Sounds notable to me. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katanga Express Gulfstream Crash

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

Non notable small aircraft crash. Fails WP:AirCrash ...William 16:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ one of many non-notable business jet accidents, doesnt appear to have killed anybody with a wiki article or hit anything important. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep see discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fatalities don't have to be celebrities with Wikipedia articles for an air crash to be notable, you know… - Andrew (My talk) 23:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to disagree in most articles about aircrashes notability of occupants is normally measured by them having a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is abundantly clear from the sources that one of the dead should have a Wikipedia article, as a former provincial governor and current chief advisor to the president of a major country, and two of the injured as the finance minister and a provincial governor. Notability is certainly not measured by already having a Wikipedia article - this encyclopedia is far from complete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and per the page listed by Bushranger change my delete to Keep. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the general notability guideline, and per common sense as killing at least one and injuring at least two clearly notable people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - WP:AIRCRASH is met as at least one of those killed, Matata Ponyo Mapon, is a Wikinotable person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI didn't know about Mapon when making this AFD nomination. Right now I'm willing to withdraw it, but did Mapon die in this crash? The two articles cited in his article don't say he died....William 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked the sources in Mapon's article, and couldn't find any statement that he actually died in the crash. All of the sources I found in the article stated he was 'heavily injured'. Klilidiplomus+Talk 14:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahhh, I misread it. However, Antoine Ngonda, who was killed, is almost certainly notable enough to have an article. (pre-crash refs: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and lots more in French.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - per Bushranger's rationale and also per WP:Notability, the minister of a country's government and his death in that WP:AIRCRASH dictates that the article be kept. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:48, 9 March 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—Author blanked page, so it was CSD'ed under G7. WP:NAC. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and Friends (series 18)

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

An article about a supposed season of a show that won't air until 2015. Giving the page creator the benefit of the doubt that this was made in good faith, the article is eligible for deletion per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. However, I'd be willing to bet that this was an intentional Hoax page. Just not quite blatant enough to be eligible for speedy deletion under criteria G3. The PROD was removed without explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sources provided by the creator, who should read and understand WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BURDEN. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod - no substantive content, unreferenced, no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added a {{prod}} to Thomas and Friends (series 17) quoting the same reasons as for this one. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's always possible that the show may be cancelled before 2015 CE. Topic fails WP:CRYSTAL, #1 and #5. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thomas and Friends is a television series that meets WP:N. The article in question is about the 18th series of the show scheduled to air in 2015. The 16th series went to air in February 2012. According to WP:FUTURE, "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I do not think a TV series 3 years in the future is "almost certain to take place". Let the article be recreated in a few years when WP:FUTURE can be met. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Series 18 and Series 17. Unless we have some substantive, reliable information—which appears lacking—it is WP:TOOSOON. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Copypasting my opinion on the Series 17 AfD:

I advocate a redirect to the main Thomas and Friends article, especially if there is a subsection of that article referring to this series. Unless of course consensus is that the information about this series is not sufficient to meet WP:CRYSTAL (I think it's on the good side of borderline), in which case, obviously, delete. - Jorgath (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion holds here, too. If and when this series exists (and is notable), we can un-redirect the article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:03, 7 March 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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection Party

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

Non-notable organisation. As per UK Electoral Commission (search for the party name here [14] the group was launched in 2006. They received, by their own admission, fewer than 1,000 votes in the four elections they contested in 2010. They are not a notable name in their field, as proven by Google searches. They are not at the centre of any high profile protest movements. They do not feature as a notable name in news media coverage of their apparent field. Non-notable groups fail Wikipedia guidelines on notability, not withstanding the absence of any formal Wikipedia policy on political parties. doktorb _words^deeds 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have argued that verifiable political parties should receive the strongest presumption of notability, as a matter of public interest. In any event I do think it would be undesirable to demand more than a minimum showing. Multiple reliable sources for the UK party can be found at GNews,[15] and I think that's enough for a keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. More than enough. The test should be this: In a few years time when I (a political scientist) am researching/reviewing elections in the early 21st century and I come across results showing that a party (in this case, the Animal Potection Party) stood for election and I know nothing about them, should I have to remain ignorant because reference sources (in this case, Wikipedia) have no mention of them? No one is suggesting that this group deserves a major article like the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or even UkIP, but this is not aspiring to that. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper - a small article is not a problem, especially given that sources are provided and others are available. Strong keep. Emeraude (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting Wikipedia is a search engine? doktorb _words^deeds 08:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: On the contrary. I'm saying its somewhere to look things up and get information. Encyclopaedia, I think they call it. Emeraude (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. There are sufficient sources to establish notability. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four council candidates plus a bit of coverage in local news and indymedia is borderline. However, if we're going to keep this, we should give some weighting to what the sources covered this party for - namely, that one of their candidates served time for arson. That's WP:LUC for you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

Reply. Wrong. Not "(f)our council candidates" but candidates in the 2010 General Election. (Did you read the article?) Emeraude (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a point against my concern about lack of balance in the article, or are you pointing out technical inaccuracies with no bearing on a !vote for the sake of it. Because it looks like the second. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing out that you were wrong to say A) it is four councillors and B) coverage only in local news and media, when the basic sources are the same as for any party standing in a general election (e.g. BBC results pages, electoral commission, official notice of candidates, etc) so far from borderline. As for the arson, I couldn't give a toss - this is an AfD discussion. If you think it belongs in the article, add it. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The aggressive tone you are using for people failing to back up your point of view in the strongest possible terms is not helping things. However, if you insist on pa full-on confrontation over this, I'm not changing to keep because i) simply standing a candidate for a parliamentary election (as opposed to having any kind of notability as a candidate) isn't that much more notable than council candidates - all it requires is a few more signatures and a bit more money; and ii) Every party of any standing in the UK demonstrates notability through daily news coverage, and routine coverage in official documents (and the reprints of results) is just incidental to that. Were it not for that stuff about the arson, there wouldn't have been any evidence at all that anyone was taking notice. Personally I think it would be better if we covered tiny parties in something like List of minor parties in the UK, so that the information about who the party is and what they did is available to anyone looking for it without it turning into a reprint of the party's website, but I won't using phrases such as "I couldn't give a toss" for anyone shown insufficient agreement for my point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yaloe (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This probably won't affect the outcome, but User:Yaloe seems to be doing a string of indiscriminate keep !votes with no reason given at any point. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:03, 28 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The guideline for politicians suggests that someone must hold a political office, rather than have just run for it. I think a similar standard can be applied here - the Animal Protection Party has not won any seats and does not seem to have had any significant coverage beyond election results. In addition, the guidelines for not-for-profit organisations suggests that an organisation is notable if its activities are on a national or international scale. In this case, the party has run for a few local seats in elections and has had not broadly national campaign, as far as I am aware. Thus, it does not seem to meet either of the most relevant guidelines. Having said that, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources would make the above reasoning redundant. I am not convinced that this has been provided yet; however, if adequate coverage can be found, I will be willing to change my mind. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-reasoned, but do bear in mind that the guideline (and it is a guideline) for politicians refers to individuals, not organisations and is designed to prevent the creation of articles on anyone who has ever stood for election to anything, or even been considered for nomination. This is not the case here, the article is about the party and not the individuals. As for WP:NGO, also bear in mind that what you have referred to as "a few local seats" are actually seats in the national legislature, contested at the General Election, which is not quite the same as contesting some minor parish or town council election.Emeraude (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this as no consensus (though with a plurality, but not a consensus for keep). I'm going to add the provision that it should not be renominated for deletion before March 2013. I think we will better equipped to evaluate this article and form a consensus after a sufficient amount of time has passed, a year seems like a suitable period in this instance. henrik•talk 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The first two deletes were closed as essentially no consensus (the second was withdrawn because people complained it was too soon, even though NC's can be immediately renommed). Since the last nomination, there has been an emerging consensus that small-scale Occupy protests like this one are non-notable. The "wait and see" mentality hasn't given any additional reason to keep; most of the references are news articles. That's not enough to keep; per WP:NOTNEWS. This should be deleted or redirected to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. WP:PRESERVE really isn't applicable here, since there's hardly any content to preserve. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to main Occupy list, per WP:EVENT and WP:GEOSCOPE--this individual "Occupy" does not have enduring historical significance or a lasting historic effect, and no national or international impact. It has primarily been reported upon only in regional media and the AP article is just using Ashland as an example of a small town, not saying the individual protest is significant--the AP article should certainly be used in the main Occupy article to show how the movement spread to small towns (albeit uber-liberal artsy ones). The info could possibly be a footnote in the history section of Ashland, Oregon, but as the article currently stands I don't see that it had much of a significant or lasting impact there either. Delete without bias for recreation if for some reason the Ashland movement becomes as newsworthy as, say, Portland's. Another option might be to make an article that summarizes all the Oregon events, perhaps at 2011 Occupy Oregon protests per Carrite in one of the previous AfDs. Valfontis (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, As of February 2012, Occupy Ashland continues to engage in organized events and actions.^[1]^[2]

^ "Occupy Ashland". Occupy Ashland. Retrieved February 23, 2012.
^ "Occupy Ashland: Actions and News". Webspiritcommunity.com. January 10, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't appear to be reliable sources... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of previously kept material suitably demonstrated to have received sufficient coverage for our purposes. Nominator is simply disrespecting past consensuses rather than moving on. Beating a dead horse to the xtreme! And hey, it is far more useful for the world to have three discussions of people saying keep, keep, keep than an article that is well sourced? Backwards logic for the win! --WR Reader (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User is the subject of a SPI discussion Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I seem to recall saying above that there wasn't a consensus in the first two discussions. Furthermore, sufficient time has passed so they can be renominated again even if there wasn't one Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you provide no policy basis for keep, nor a refutation of the extensive deletion rationale. You mostly just attack me for nominating it in the first place Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to refute, because no actual reason exists for deletion. Newsworthy material of historic importance and interest to our readers is worth preserving. Why on earth would you possibly think removing this content makes sense, but keeping three discussions about that content public is somehow better for civilization? WTF!? --WR Reader (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nominator is the subject of a SPI discussion --WR Reader (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)~~ SPI discussion speedily closedPurpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, whether or not AfD discussions should be kept for posterity is a wholly different matter, but as for whether this should be kept or not, we have two very important guidelines, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. If an article is something that falls under NOT (of which WP:NOTNEWS is part), it can be deleted. My deletion rationale is that this article is something that falls under NOT. I suggest you familiarize yourself with NOTE and NOT before continuing to participate in deletion discussions. That's all I'll say to you Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Here are some of the available sources, some of which are comprised of national coverage (Associated Press) and regional coverage (The Oregonian):

"Occupy Ashland: Day Two." KOBI 5 NBC Affiliate.
Holmes, Sarah (October 20, 2011). "Occupy Ashland protests continue as supporters rally in Medford." The Siskiyou.
Barnard, Jeff (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street goes micro in small town." (Sourced from the Associated Press.) Deseret News.
Associated Press. (October 27, 2011). "Small Oregon Towns Join Occupy Movement." Oregon Public Broadcasting News.
Associated Press (November 2, 2011)."Occupy roundup: Ashland group votes to cut back; Occupy Seattle march on Chase CEO." The Oregonian.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've perfectly proven why it fails WP:NOTNEWS. The deletion rationale is almost wholly based on NOTNEWS; whether it passes GNG or not is irrelevant. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, per Valfontis. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of any lasting significance of this event, possible search term so after delete a redirect may be in order. Mt king ^(edits) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough references to pass GNG. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Notability is not determined by the number of references. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, why was it nominated? The very first source I looked at made it notable, and there are others. B^e——C_ritical 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The two of you...what about NOT? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT source did you look at and HOW did it make it notable? Which notability guideline applies? I could say "The first reference I looked at made it non-notable" if I wanted to. Without any explanation that doesn't mean much. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Small event that doesn't meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Obviously, this doesn't apply to all Occupy events; in this case it doesn't meet an encyclopedic level of continuing coverage. tedder (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of this post, Occupy Ashland has been expanded, another reference has been added, and more inline citations have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is another news article, again reaffirming my continual point that this fails NOTNEWS... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, here's the new reference, from Southern Oregon's Mail Tribune, which is an example of regional coverage: Occupy Ashland making transition in protest strategies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think i'm done with the page. The coverage is significant, from a number of different outlets, and from several regional providers for both all of Oregon, Kentucky, and elsewhere. The coverage extends over a period of several months, it was not just one short news cycle. For these reasons, I believe the article is notable and should be kept. Silver seren^C 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ KEEP and Merge to proposed main page by state or country - I don't think the article meets the threshold for notability in that there isn't "Significant coverage"...and i base this against the Occupy Wall Street article. And in my looking at the article there appear to be only a handful of authors of the sources. It is surely a notable news story for the moment, but does that make it a notable enough subject for an independent article on Wikipedia. I don't believe so. There are too many Occupy article stubs that have no potential to grow past stub status and this article fails to even have a rating or importance or class. We may want to take in all the stray puppies we find, but eventually we know they have to be taken away and dealt with in one way or another. I would hope we could be humane about how we deal with these stubs but at some pint we are going to have to deal with them and I agree that time may be fast approaching. As stated it does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and does not meet notability is not temporary. This just not worth keeping in my view.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the lack of rating or importance or class was a result of my deleting or changing same from the banners when the article was originally redirected, as seen in the talk page history. I'll restore the ratings. I don't think the lack of ratings, which is a WikiProject thing, is a valid reason for deletion, though I !voted delete myself. Valfontis (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the whole point but yes, was a part of the point. Just illustrative of the point that it isn't much of an article and is unlikely to expand. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article has been expanded a great deal today. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then that is also a kind of point as well. If this is expanded...then maybe it isn't going to be a historically notable subject over time. while I can certainly appreciate your feeling and desire to save the article I also remeber that you helped save my only Occupy article...Occupy Sacramento and it is even smaller than this one, and has not been expanded. I know it isn't going to be something everyone agrees on....but it is time to start merging and i think we as editors need to start making these tough decisions.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last point and I won't make further comment so others can weigh in, but...I belive we as editors need to step up and help clean up the encyclopedia that may have been cluttered by early enthusiasim that simply didn't translate into fully realized articles. It is our resposibility that the articles are here and we need to weed out what has little to no chance of true expansion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mad, you can't !vote "Keep and Merge". The outcomes are mutually exclusive. If you want content merged to another article, you vote merge. If you want it to stay in the current form Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read that again sir. I vote keep for this article and the suggestion of merge is a proposal for after the AFD ends. I also suggest you stop campaigning and allow the community to make this decision. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does telling you that you can't vote keep and merge amount to campaigning? It doesn't! You've rolled a short-term move and a long-term one into one vote. You can't vote both ways, either vote short-term or long-term. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever dude. I did it and there is nothing you can do to stop such. I made my choice to Keep and will suggest the article be merged after the AFD closes. Please stop trying to overpower the discussion. You have made your point now please back away slowy from the carcass. Have a nice day.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one can !vote "keep and merge". In fact, if any content is merged then the article history must be kept for attribution purposes, so merging requires keeping. I think you must be confusing this case with "merge and delete", which is an excluded combination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the much quoted NOTNEWS has long been depreciated as in the past it has often been misapplied. The article meets GNG, so the only question left is if there is a rule to exclude. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for example excludes "routine" events. The occupy events so far are not "routine" so that exclusion does not apply. Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are run-of-the-mill, however. Hundreds of cities have had Occupy protests, many at least as big and at least as covered as this one. That doesn't mean we need articles on all of them. I'm also gonna pull the recency card here...similar protests in the past with similar attendance and coverage either would never have articles created, or would have them created and deleted or merged Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Run-of-the-mill is a personal opinion that has attracted much more opposition than support. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet GNG? Why doesn't NOTNEWSPAPER apply? Why isn't this protest routine? You are making comments but providing no evidence to back them up. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWSPAPER is pretty irrelevant when GNG does not apply as it is a special rule to exclude otherwise notable content. GNG qed! As far as why NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply has also been explained. But maybe you need spelling it out. A routine event happens everywhere like the remembrance day parade - every year - every town and always gets newspaper coverage explaining which bigwig laid what size wreath. The comparativly handful occupy protests don't get the matter of fact reporting. Agathoclea (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article passes the GNG with flying colours --Guerillero | My Talk 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass GNG? Simply stating that "it passes" means nothing. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverserens's reasoning. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. Yes, there are sources. No, there is not a shred of evidence that this has any lasting encyclopedic value. WP is not a newspaper and we don't need to have an article on any protest by a couple of dozen people anywhere in the world throughout world history... Kudos to Purplebackpack89 for having the courage to tackle this mess, against all those who cannot see past next week... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is not a shred of evidence that anything will last past next week, but you comment about the number of people was wildly innaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)

His general point is that it never was a large protest, and is a very small one in its ongoing nature Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size is actually one of the more irrelevant categories in regards to a subject. All that matter is the coverage of it, its "notability" and how extensive this coverage is. The mistaken opinion that an event could end also has nothing to do with the current notability and coverage of the subject. Silver seren^C 21:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nitpick, notability has nothing to do with "current". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean current as in breaking news or anything like that, I mean it in terms of "up to this point". All of the coverage up to this point establishes notability, and speculation about whether the protest will continue next week is irrelevant. Silver seren^C 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Notability is not temporary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple, substantial, independent, published reliable sources. Passes GNG, love them or hate them. I still think the ideal ultimate structure will be state-by-state treatments of the Occupy movement; deleting this information now won't help that cause. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering it, I would compare the Occupy movement articles to those of the Protests against the Iraq War in 2003. While that movement saw widespread and sustained presence in many major cities, we've generally only kept individual articles of those with independently notable historic value by themselves over the long term -- we didn't keep articles on minor protests simply because they were part of that overall movement. Some of the larger Occupy movements have achieved unquestionable notability, but as far as this individual movement, I fail to see how anything about the protest in Ashland has distinguished itself enough to deserve an article of its own, and I fail to see how it will have any lasting value considering the size of the movement and the lack of anything other than local news sources and a pair of mid-length AP stories to establish notability, and only as an occasional news piece. I would consider keeping a few sentences for a merge elsewhere, maybe about how the goals specific to this individual movement differed from those of the others. —Ed!^(talk) 07:48, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: In the past few months, we have nominated this article for deletion three times. There seems to be a majority who want to keep the article, but not a real consensus. I note that all arguments to keep are that it meets the general notability guideline, and some argue that there is enough sustained coverage to meet WP:Notability (events). Those who argue to delete claim it fails that guideline. I could just have closed as no consensus here, but that would likely put us in the same spot again in a month or two (and who knows, consensus might be clearer then, though I personally doubt it.) I think what we should be asking ourselves are two questions: the first being: is this an event for which the notability guidelines of events are applicable? Or is this something else (an organisation possibly?). The second question is, does this meet the relevant notability guideline, either that for events or for organisations. Another possiblity is that we got ourselves a cornercase where neither guideline really applies, and we need to wing it as we go. The added overhead of more discussion is in this case worth the distinction between no consensus and keep, or something that could even swing to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a number of news sources with new info that's been in the past three or so months, showing that Occupy Ashland has still been getting news and continues to do so. Silver seren^C 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Seren (and Hoekstra): You're ignoring the recency, NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT problems. There's more than just GNG; something barely passing GNG doesn't mean an automatic keep Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which deals specifically with the notability guideline for events which I discuss in the relist comment above. WP:ONEEVENT is deals with biographies for people notable for one event which has no relevance at all at this discussion. So yes, I am ignoring WP:ONEEVENT, because it doesn't apply to this discussion, and no, I'm not ignoring WP:NOTNEWS, in fact, I specifically address that discussion should focus on if it applies, and if it does, if it is met. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You have a strange definition of what constitutes one event. First off, WP:ONEEVENT applies to people that were involved in an event and this article isn't about a person, so that has no application here. Secondly, WP:NOTNEWS generally applies to breaking news or routine coverage. This article is neither of those. It's a continuous protest action that has been taking place since October and the coverage in a number of different outlets in significant depth is not routine coverage. Silver seren^C 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. You still are failing to address the recency argument (how do we know if it will stand the test of time?); and the fact that a story pops up in the news now and again sounds pretty much like routine coverage to me Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What recency argument? This protest has been going on for five months. Any assumption on whether it will "stand the test of time" is just crystal-balling and has nothing to do with the current coverage of the subject. Silver seren^C 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI can't speak for the other small locations but our state's group is very much alive and well. They were tenting till about two weeks ago and continue to hold meetings and plan events. I would assume this to be true of the other sites that are much larger and have an article here. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There's just too much here, over too long of a period of coverage, to be simply dismissed as a news story. The question of whether or not it should be a standalone article can be of course handled at the article's talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage from many sources over a long time. The article has been improved several times since the last AFDs, and shows promise of future improvement. The news articles provided are valid references, and it's common use of such articles to demonstrate notability on Wikipedia.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two gentlemen who commented directly above me. I find their arguments persuasive. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm glad somebody is starting to clean up the mess of 'Occupy' related articles that started springing up a few months ago. This article (and many similar articles) should be deleted for the following reasons:

1. There are no sources for this Occupy movement that show that it has enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect, nor are there sources that show widespread (national or international) impact - These are the two basic criteria for WP:EVENT

2. Between Google news, books, and scholar the only place that this gets hits is news. The news results are all local. If you think books and scholar wouldn't have hts on a protest, then try book-ing or scholar-ing a protest that had lasting historical significance (Tiananmen Square maybe?). People mention protests in books and papers when they are significant.

3. The local news coverage makes it quite clear that this is a run-of-the-mill Occupy protest. There should not be a page for every Occupy protest ___location, as it is not notable. Take, for example, the article on the 1980 Olympics Soviet vs. United States men's hockey game. There is quite an article on that game, as it had a significant, lasting effect. Notice there is no article on United States vs. Sweden, United States vs. Norway, United States vs. Romania, West Germany vs. Norway, Norway vs. Sweden, etc.. Every match does not meet the requirements to get it's own article, just like every protest under the blanket of a large, international protest does not get its own article

4. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE per items 1-3

5. Falls under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:NTEMP, WP:NEWSBRIEF per items 1-3. People voting 'keep' have just been saying things like "this is significant, look at all these news stories," but are conveniently ignoring Wikipedia's policies and providing little to no comment on how the policies that the delete-voters are citing.

These things cannot be ignored. This article does not meet notability criteria and should be deleted. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. If that was true, then every event that ever happened that wasn't national or larger wouldn't have an article and that is clearly not true. The Ashland protest has had a significant regional effect, the specifics of how are already presented in the article.

2. Again, this would be saying that all articles that don't have a Google Books or Scholar hit are non-notable, this is very clearly not true. And the news sources are both local, regional, and statewide, along with a fair amount of national/international coverage though things like the Associated Press.

3. An Wikipedia:Other stuff does not exist argument is just as bad as a Other stuff exists argument, when not backed up any meaningful amount. For your example, there's no indication that the other hockey games in that year are non-notable, just that no one's bothered to make an article on them yet and just because the Soviet one got more coverage than the rest doesn't mean the rest are non-notable. The notability of this Occupy ___location is clearly notable, because of the wide range of coverage from a large number of different outlets at all different layers of size.

4. Clearly it does not, especially not GNG or CONTINUED COVERAGE, as there is significant news coverage that has been as recent as March 4th, continuing since the start of the protest in October.

5. Listing a bunch of policy links is essentially just bashing the discussion with an argument that isn't being filled in with an actual argument. All of the stuff you linked is refuted by the coverage itself. Silver seren^C 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your counterargument to 1 is very clearly not the case. The content of the article is entirely focused on actions the protestors have taken, and the only impact covered that this specific moment has is an increase in accounts for the local credit union. We can use that as a sentence in another larger piece about the impact of Occupy Wall Street in general. A few news articles do not create notability for this individual event, even with the AP article, since they were clearly using this one movement to illustrate a "typical" Occupy demonstration. The news covers lots of things regularly which do not pass GNG. Trying to say we shouldn't base this decision on the numerous policies in question, in my mind, just proves User:MisterRichValentine's point. —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is exactly what we've been talking about. The tools of big oil who keep raising gas prices for no reason want to silence us and minimize coverage of our activities to challenge them, huh? Yet, the protesters are Time's People of the Year!? The ongoing occupy movement has lasting historical significance and the various individual protests have valid research value that warrants their inclusion here. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)--63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:SOAPBOX. We can't keep an article just to demonstrate its political objective. —Ed!^(talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's to see? We can keep the article, because it is part of a historically consequential movement and is sourced in multiple reliable sources. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Occupy Wall Street is historically consequential, but Occupy Ashland is not, even with the multiple sources. There's no individual impact here and, in my mind, no reason to keep it as an independent article. What little relevant detail exists here should be merged to List of global Occupy protest locations. —Ed!^(talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There most certainly is individual impact on the people of Ashland and the wider movement. This article demonstrates how far reaching and widespread the scope of the movement is and readers are clearly interested in that reality. It is backed by multiple sources. Really, for the "ultimate encyclopedia", anything backed by multiple sources should have an article. I will never get the logic of those who think it benefits this site or civilization to have an article covering something of relevance to someone red linked, but to in this case it is okay to have three non-redlinked discussions about that same article. Why would we rather cover talking about something's suitability over and over and keep that on the site and in public view, but not the actual article itself, which admittedly is sourced? --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In general I favor inclusionism on those grounds too, but I that same logic just does not apply here. There is no impact on the local population stated on the article right now, save one sentence about a local bank seeing more customers. Nothing as-is proves any other kind of quantifiable impact this demonstration has had on its city. —Ed!^(talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would think getting 5.6 million people to change their bank account, "more than all transfers in 2010", would be a pretty notable effect. I mean, it was the primary one they were focusing on. Silver seren^C 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an unverified number published in one student publication, sourced to an Occupy member who clearly has a COI, making it unreliable and probably impossible to verify. Besides, from the context of the article, the 5.6 million number likely refers to all of the Occupy movement, once again meaning this should be merged with another article on the impact of the greater Occupy movement. —Ed!^(talk) 23:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Because it seems that we have moved past saying to outright redlink, the Afd should be closed and any thoughts to merge and redirect can be discussed elsewhere. Cheers! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. What I said is one detail of this article belongs somewhere else. The rest should be deleted, unless we can come up with some better sources about the impact Occupy Ashland has had on banks, or anything else. —Ed!^(talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Ed. Just because the Occupy movement as a whole is notable doesn't mean that every protest ___location is notable. Just because 5.6 million people switched nationwide doesn't make a much smaller number switching in Ashland notable. And just because something has appeared in a few newspapers doesn't mean we have to have to keep it. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that the delete arguments are much stronger than the Keep ones. The Keep arguments are based on two faulty premises: 1) That GNG trumps all other guidelines, and that anything with coverage has to be kept, and 2) that the OCcupy protests being notable in aggregate makes each individual one notable. By contrast, the delete argument are based on a more broad-based look at policy Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's more of the Keeps saying it meets policy and the Deletes saying that it doesn't meet policy. The subject of the article has received continued coverage for a number of months from a bunch of different news outlets of varying scope. All of us that said keep feel that that meets the notability policy. Silver seren^C 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point that you're arguing that GNG trumps everything, and therefore nothing else (like all the stuff Ed and Valentine said) should be considered. GNG does not trump everything else Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not my or anyone's (except 63.3.19.1) argument. There is far more than just GNG that I argued. Though I will note that the SNGs are considered adjunct to GNG, not over it. And the argument for not meeting the Event SNG is pretty flimsy, considering the continued coverage and coverage in numerous outlets. Silver seren^C 04:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Silver seren, among many others. And on a side note, I am frankly disgusted by the way User:Purplebackpack89 is trying to bully every single editor who disagrees with him. Bro, you don't need to reply to EVERY one who says to keep (the overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion and those with the strongest arguments). So, no, you don't kneed to come attacking me next, because the delete votes are just not strong like the keep arguments and I am not going to be persuaded otherwise. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of bullying is ridiculous. I haven't responded to every editor, nor am I the only editor to comment. It's not an overwhelming majority, nor is it the strongest arguments. I am a bit troubled that half of your contributions on this Wikipedia are keep !votes on AfDs. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am far more troubled by the beating of a dead horse, repeatedly renominating the same previously kept article for deletion, and if you seriously look at how many times you have commented in this Afd, it goes beyond just making a case. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's 100% perfectly acceptable to renom something that's been closed as no consensus. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination admits that there is WP:PRESERVE material, and makes no attempt to refute the case for redirect, so we start without an argument for deletion. It doesn't take but a quick glance to see what is nominally a delete !vote agreeing that the real !vote is merge. Article is well-sourced, far exceeding the Balloon boy incident benchmark in satisfying the "over a period of time" criterion in WP:N. Even a WP:NOT argument here only leads to a loss of notability and merger—there is no credible case to be made for deleting the edit history here, so to close this as "no consensus" would be a fiction, when what we need is that editors take their cases to merge to the talk page of the article instead of adding to the work load at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, but moreover, a similar article about something which took place 80 years ago would not be nominated for deletion. This will increasingly be valued as an article on a historical event in Ashland. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this still open? Seems still too hot-button to escape no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:56, 14 March 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. There is obviously no consensus to delete, merge and redirect discussions can happen on the talk page. v/r - T P 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crush (relationship)

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

This article will need a major reworking, and the article does not seem to show any WP:NN. Jab843 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP is not a dictionary. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a terrible article, but I think the subject matter is notable. A crush is sort of like unrequited love. It is to do with a one-sided romance. There are psychological factors to talk about. Also development of the concept, and different situations that the term can be (and has been) applied in. I assume taht there are many sources for this, the only problem being that typing "crush" into Google means getting bombarded with millions of other definitions (songs/movies etc.) before getting to the good stuff. I say keep and work on.--Coin945 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wait a second Bingo.... Possible redirect to Limerence.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppy love which actually says "Puppy love (also known as a crush or calf love or even "kitten love")" in the first line. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A few thoughts: (1) This is a very bad article. (2) The term "crush" can be redirected to either limerence — which is written like a section from a graduate psychology textbook or to puppy love, which is ultra-lite. These topics are essentially a content fork. (3) Crush (relationship) should probably be the encyclopedic topic for something which merges the academic core of limerence with the tone and spirit of puppy love. (4) Limerence is a terrible title. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that about Limerence. Is it possible to have a sort of disam page at Crush so people can take their choice? If it's against policy, perhaps it should be introduced, as there are times when something could redirect either of two or more ways. A true disam page has closely related titles. of course, while this would be for apparently unrelated titles. Another way round would be a redirect to one or the other with a hatnote on the destination. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination that the topic is not notable is obviously false as entire books have been written about it. For a scholarly treatment, see Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Warden (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Limerence, per WP:NOTDICT. Hatnotes could be placed accordingly at both Limerence and Puppy love directing to the (former) academic/psychology article and (latter) populist/love one. In arriving at this !vote, I considered placing a {{Requested move}} at Talk:Limerence in order to move to Crush (relationship) via CSD, per WP:COMMONNAME - however, Limerence is presumably the common name in academia. I also note that the article creator blanked the page within 10 minutes of this discussion starting. Please can someone close this sensibly some time soon (rather than having it hanging around even longer/relisting it?) -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. How does this AfD even exist?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see how this was nominated when it was new and in even worse shape. Close as keep without prejudice to merger/redirect discussions to similar terms like puppy love.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, so I've done a really specific search on Google, and have dumped the results from the first 11 pages or so into the article, just so we have them somewhere. I did a lot of sifting through to get rid of all the unreliable sources, but there are probably quite a few in there, which we can go through as we work not he article (if it is kept). I'm pretty sure that the sources I have compiled show the scope of what the article can talk about - how to know if you're in a crush, what to do if you have a crush while in a relationship, how do you know if your crush likes you, how to recover from a failed crush, what to do if you have an inappropriate crush, what is a crush, what does it feel like to be in a crush. A Lot of the sources are from popular magazines (such as marie claire), and one PDF is written by a woman with a PHD. I'm starting to think that this article as more and more potential...--Coin945 (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Redirect to puppy love. At best, this article is a content fork of puppy love. A redirect to Limerence would be ok, I guess, but that term seem far more specific and clinical. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:06, 15 March 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 by Bearian as G7. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky and Dining

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

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 15:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral What is the reason for deletion? I can see that it might be an essay, but what is your rationale? Nate • (chatter) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Speedy delete per Oknazevad with the reasonings cited in his rationale. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article seems to basically be unsourced original research to me, and not very well written at that. There are a couple of books listed as references - both simply entitled Whisky (without any mention of dining, and both published by the same publisher), but no indication of whether they actually discuss the subject of the article or what they may say about it. The article itself seems to state that the topic has not been a significant consideration in cultural history and has not been extensively discussed in literature ("no long-established tradition", etc.). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Pure OR, recreating an article (Whisky and Food) that was speedied as an unneeded fork of the main whisky article, where poorly written, poorly formatted attempts to force in the same OR have been reverted. The creator of those edits and the speedied page has been blocked for disruptive editting; I believe the creator of this article is also the same person (that is, a sock) based on the similarities of user names and contributions. As a recreation of a deleted page, with no improvement, this article should be itself speedied. Also, the user should be blocked for using a sock for block evasion, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low quality unsourced OR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Author blanked the article and requested deletion on their edit summary [16]. I've tagged it for G7 — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 6 March 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 per the rough consensus below regarding the subject's demonstrated notability, although there is also a consensus that the article could use some reworking. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from beauty

AfDs for this article:

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

Essay masquerading as an article. The titular subject is synthesis from disparate primary sources, written by an editor closely aligned to one such source. The previous AfD dates back to a more innocent period in WP's history when simply having a good number of references was sufficient to justify an article not being OR. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from love (2nd nomination). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no significant deletion argument here. Essay means little as that's just a matter of style and addressed by ordinary editing. The claim of synthesis is just hand-waving and does not specify the supposed synthetic proposition. And having a good number of references is a preposterous criticism. Warden (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It fairly clearly identifies the synthetic proposition as "the titular subject" — i.e. the entire concept denoted. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For the same reason I gave at the other article. None of the sources here are explicitly about an argument for the existence of God. Again, I will change my mind if the logical form of the argument can be attributed to a serious philosopher or even Christian apologist. Vesal (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to get people to agree about who counts as a "serious philosopher", but the first few of the Google Books hits linked above find substantial discussion from Richard Swinburne [17] and Richard Dawkins [18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are perfectly fine. My objection only applies to the section Argument from beauty#Outline logical structure. As it currently stands, the main premise is that beauty exists in ways that transcends its material manifestations. This is essentially asserting dualism. Swinburne does not argue like that, and the question is if any of the sources Uncle G has found argue like that, and if they don't, does it makes sense to have this article distinct from the argument from design? Vesal (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of refs and been in WP for 5 years. (I find that I created this article in 2006, but many others have worked on it since). NBeale (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the article does not make sense. There could unlimited things like "argument from X", where the X could anything from love, caring, presence of trees, sun etc. Such articles contribute nothing, they are just for the sake of illogical arguments. I propose nominations of Argument from a proper basis, Argument from desire, Argument from degree as well for deletion Abhishikt (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote the same boilerplate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from love (2nd nomination). I've explained its error there.
  I add to that a note that thinking that an encyclopaedia shouldn't have an article on something propounded by Thomas Aquinas — the argument from degrees — indicates a woeful state of ignorance. But so, too, does the poor state of that article. Here's a rule of thumb for you: If something is in Summa Theologica, it almost certainly has scholarly sources discussing, describing, and arguing about it going back for eight centuries. It probably has several centuries of sources in Latin. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This and Argument from love (AfD discussion) are two similar articles; and their AFD discussions you'll notice are pretty much the same up until this point. (You'll notice that the two articles' talk pages are markedly different.) The problem with this article is not that it is original research in its entirety. There is actually an argument from beauty to the existence of God in the literature. Even looking at only recent literature in English (rather than, say, older works in Greek or Latin), one find Dawkins refuting it (Dawkins 2006, pp. 110 et seq.) harv error: no target: CITEREFDawkins2006 (help), and Swinburne (Swinburne 2011, p. 201–202) harv error: no target: CITEREFSwinburne2011 (help), Kirwan (Kirwan 1999, p. 35) harv error: no target: CITEREFKirwan1999 (help), Legge (Legge 1932, p. 42–46) harv error: no target: CITEREFLegge1932 (help), and others propounding it. Even Zia Ullah (Zia Ullah 1984, pp. 28 et seq.) harv error: no target: CITEREFZia_Ullah1984 (help) gets in on the act, although you'll have to go to Yaran (Yaran 2003, p. 95) harv error: no target: CITEREFYaran2003 (help) for some actual analysis rather than a simple Islamic statement of the argument.
The problem with this article is twofold. First, it is badly written. Second, it is unclear whether we need this separately from the argument from design (which Swinburne addresses it as) or the argument from providence (which Yaran addresses it as). Neither of these are solved with the use of the deletion tool, however.
By the way, it's also called the aesthetic argument, which you'll find discussed recently in English in even more places (Haffner 2001, p. 194–195, Viney 1985, and so forth) and propounded by people such as Charles Hartshorne. In an alternative form, it's often used to counter the problem of evil argument. (A case could be made that these are two separate arguments, but its use as a counter to an argument against the existence of God places it as an argument for the existence of God.)
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618680009.
- Swinburne, Richard (2011). "The Argument From Design". In Pojman, Louis P.; Rea, Michael (eds.). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (6th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781111305444.
- Kirwan, James (1999). Beauty. Manchester University Press ND. ISBN 9780719055720.
- Zia Ullah, Mohammad (1984). Islamic concept of God. Routledge. ISBN 9780710300768.
- Yaran, Cafer S. (2003). Islamic thought on the existence of God: with contributions from contemporary Western philosophy of religion. CRVP. ISBN 9781565181922.
- Legge, R. G. (1932). Christian theism in contemporary thought. Christian evidence handbooks. Northumberland press limited.
- Haffner, Paul (2001). The mystery of reason. Gracewing Publishing. ISBN 9780852445389.
- Viney, Donald Wayne (1985). "The Aestheic Argument". Charles Hartshorne and the existence of God. SUNY series in philosophy. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780873959070.
Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, thank you for taking the time to research this issue. Vesal (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Teleological argument. This article originated as an essay. It was written to persuade, and brought in a host of semi-relevant half-digested quotations and references apparently gathered by Google-trawling. Nonetheless (unlike Argument from love, which is a heap of nonsense from the same source, and which has failed to get out of that essay mire in the five-plus years of its existence), there is a real thing out there in the non-Wikipedia world that is sometimes called an argument from beauty, so I think there is justification for an article here that refers to this material. But I cannot see how it is any different from the argument from design, i.e. the Teleological argument, and I think the best way of dealing with the stylistic issues here is to extract a few points from this essay, if there is anything useful, and merge with that article. An article should be about a concept, not a form of words. The concept here is the teleological argument. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. ref-ed. no substantial claim to delete.Greg Bard (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the love of all that is truly holy, because it is unencyclopedic content, because it is non-notable, and because it is empirically observable to be a pleasant pipedream posing as logic. Aesthetics is a function of our minds, and each are the better for this. Every word of the first and primary premise of this argument, that science is unable to account for beauty, was written before brain imaging technology. Anarchangel (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we don't delete articles just because some editors don't agree with the content. The notability and validity of an argument are quite different questions. {BTW brain imaging was around in 2006 and has nothing whatever to do with the argument! No-one denies that things happen in our brains when we appreciate beauty (and often in other parts of our bodies) but the question is whether beauty exists in ways that transcend its material manifestations. The article gives arguments for and against that view. All arguments depend on premises that may or may not be true, but that does not make the argument invalid much less non-notable} NBeale (talk) 14:38, 1 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Whether or not one agrees with the argument is irrelevant. The argument is certainly notable of itself - a very very brief search on Google Books reveals the following: a section in Dawkins' God Delusion, a section in this book, a chapter in this book (note: the aesthetic argument and the argument from beauty are one and the same), a mention here (which, although only a mention, treats the argument as separate from the teleological argument), a mention in this book, a mention here. This seems to me to be sufficient coverage.
Keep. Checking the Google Books link finds a host of books defending or attacking the argument, and there are more references under the name "aesthetic argument." It is clearly notable, whether or not it is valid. -- 202.124.75.63 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. This article is firmly grounded in reliable sources. The most convincing delete !vote is Vesal's, which hinges on the question of whether any serious philosophers have held that "beauty exists in ways that transcend its material manifestations." If I understand Augustine's Confessions X.6 correctly, he does hold this view; in his philosophy of beauty, there is a progression from physical beauty (materialism) to "intelligible beauty, which exceeds the sensory and temporal aspects of the sensible experience of beauty" ([19]). There is more info in these articles:
- The Goodness and Beauty of Truth. H. B. Alexander. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods , Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan. 5, 1911), pp. 5-21 on JSTOR
- J. Roland E. Ramirez, “Augustine’s Proof for God’s Existence from the Experience of Beauty: Confessions, X,6,” Augustinian Studies 19 (1988): 121-30. (No web access)
- Some Aspects of St. Augustine's Philosophy of Beauty. Emmanuel Chapman. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 1941), pp. 46-51 (on JSTOR)

I agree that this argument seems very similar to the argument from design, but there are enough sources discussing it as a separate topic that it deserves a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if the article's contents are trivial or relating to that of a personal essay, that in no way should allude to a deletion; it should be edited, fixed or reworked if that. The article and the others like it are obviously notable aspects of philosophy and theology. Royal Mate1 00:32, 15 March 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 argument that this was a WP:SYNTH violation was a strong one, and the vague hand waving at Google results was a rather weak response. However, it seems in the end that it is possible to rectify the issues with original research and synthesis, so let's call it "keep but remove all original research." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from love

AfDs for this article:

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

Essay masquerading as an article. The titular subject is synthesis from disparate primary sources. The previous AfD dates back to a more innocent period in WP's history when simply having a good number of references was sufficient to justify an article not being OR. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from beauty (2nd nomination). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes a claim of synthesis without detailing the supposed synthetic proposition. The article has sources and it is not difficult to find more such as this. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an entirely different argument for life after death: God love's you, so he wouldn't let you vanish, therefore, life continues after death. It has nothing to do with this argument here. Vesal (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's a different argument which that source has in a separate section as The Argument from God's Love. Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you link to page 251, and that's certainly an argument for immortality. Could you tell me on which page the argument for God's existence is? Vesal (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is not an argument considered in contemporary philosophy of religion. It may be used in amateur apologetics, and most likely, Richard Dawkins ridiculed it in his book The God Delusion, which is probably the only reason this article exists... Still, I looked at most sources cited here, and none was explicitly and directly about an argument for the existence of God, so it's very much a WP:SYNT creation. I will change my mind, though, if at least the logical form of the argument can be explicitly attributed to some philosopher or even apologist. Vesal (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was all debated in 2007 and nothing has changed to make the article less viable. Indeed the fact that it has been in WP for 5 years is pretty strong prima facie evidence against deletion. (On checking I find that this was an article I initially created, back in 2006, but many others have worked on the article since. I'm basically on a WikiBreak so probably won't be able to respond to messages I'm afraid). NBeale (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of the article does not make sense. There could unlimited things like "argument from X", where the X could anything from love, caring, presence of trees, sun etc. Such articles contribute nothing, they are just for the sake of illogical arguments. I propose nominations of Argument from a proper basis, Argument from desire, Argument from degree as well for deletion. Abhishikt (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are quite a lot of Arguments from X to the existence of God. It's been a subject that has been thoroughly debated for some several thousand years, after all. In many ways, our sad bullet-pointed existence of God article doesn't do them justice. That a wide range of such arguments have been made is not a problem. Indeed, quite the converse: every one that has been discussed an analysed by philosophers and others can have a valid place in an encyclopaedia (and indeed already have in several other encyclopaedias, which we aim to at least equal) whether it's valid or not. It is the arguments that have not been made by philosophers and that are made up directly by Wikipedia editors that are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden points to Google search results. It was actually that, not that the current article is valid, that convinced the nominator to withdraw in the prior AFD discussion. Colonel Warden points out that the article has sources. It has some sources. Notice that quite a lot of the notes are not statements that a source supports something in the article. Moreover, it has sources for some of its parts, often only tangentially related, but not for the overarching concept itself.
The problem with just waving in the general direction of Google search results is that there are many "arguments from love" in the literature. The important thing to consider, which the Google wavers have not, is what those arguments from love are to. There's an argument from love to immortality originating with Gabriel Marcel. There's an argument from love to trinitarianism (and rejecting unitarianism) put forward by Sts Bonaventure and Augustine. Neither of those arguments are this argument, which is to the existence of God. After five years of asking, Nicholas Beale has yet to name who it is that propounds this argument.
Don't believe the "other people have edited it so it must be true" argument, by the way. Ironically, the editing by other people has been to challenge material in this article. There's reams of discussion on the talk page, and I'm sad to report that it boils down to the challengers getting tired of repeating the same question — Where in the literature is this argument propounded? — to which there has been zero response in five years, and editors getting distracted by ideas that only editors with a certain point of view may edit the article and Wikipedia editors themselves trying to determine whether the argument is valid.
I have a few more things to check before coming to a final conclusion, but at the moment I'm with Vesal. This argument — not something with this string of words as a title that a Google books search can turn up but this actual argument with the conclusion given — doesn't exist in the literature, and the only person propounding it is a Wikipedia editor, in violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy.
Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I asked a lot of questions on the talk page, and nominated the article for deletion, several years ago. Eventually I backed off, deciding I was clearly not qualified to comment, as I was a mere mortal and did not understand the exalted matters discussed by the author in this essay masquerading as a Wikipedia article. I have had another read of the article. Time has not improved it. It is still an essay expressing (mostly) one editor's opinion and marshalling all sorts of passing references retrieved from Google that happen to use the words in the article's title, or something like them, to imply support of a particular point of view. It is not an encyclopaedia article describing/explaining something that has any solid existence out there in the world. Where is the thing out there called the "argument from love"? Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, not a platform for bloggish musings. Get rid of this sorry mess. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. ref-ed. style issues can be addressed. Greg Bard (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the original research issues, which you don't even address? Or are you saying that you've finally answered the five-year-old question against this article: Where in the literature is this argument propounded? You imply that you've actually checked out the sources. So tell us: Where in the literature is this argument propounded? And by whom? You should be able to say, now that you've checked out the sources and come to the above conclusion. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, for example, Global philosophy of religion which discusses the "argument from love to God's existence" over several pages with a specific section heading like the title of this article. That was published in 2001 and so the topic is not original to Wikipedia. Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the love of respect, tolerance, attachment, passion, rose tinted glasses, and all that is truly love, because it is unencyclopedic content, because it is non-notable, and because it is empirically observable to be a pleasant pipedream posing as logic. Love is a function of our minds, and each are the better for this. Every word of the first and primary premise of this argument, that science is unable to account for love, was written before brain imaging technology. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that the argument is invalid, which has nothing to do with its notability. Notable arguments can be valid or invalid. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagreeing with the content of an article is not a valid argument for deleting it. (And FWIW brain imaging makes no difference to the argument at all, but this is irrelevant to the AfD) NBeale (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beale, we haven't found people who argue like this in the literature. The philosophical alternative to theistic explanations are naturalistic explanations, so the "plausibility of theism by comparison with materialism" is entirely irrelevant. If you defeat materialism, the plausibility of pastafarianism by comparison with materialism is also increased, but that doesn't make it a valid argument for the flying spaghetti monster. Do you have sources for this specific form of the argument? Vesal (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have little difficulty finding this line of argument in published works such as Christian apologetics. The "specific form" issue is a weak criticism because we are not dealing with a mathematical proof here. Apologetics may be weak logically but that doesn't stop them being used and that is the basis of their notability. Warden (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely critical that this article presents the arguments exactly as they occur in the sources you have found. From my brief look at the "global philosophy of religion", it does not argue versus materialism but versus naturalism, so this strange way of formalizing the argument is original to Wikipedia. So will you commit any effort to actually make this article reflect the sources you've found, or will this article remain in this miserable state after the inevitable "no consensus" closure? Vesal (talk) 21:57, 1 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is meaningful referenced material here, however, much care is required. If the article follows standard scholarship, then it ought to be possible to elucidate that "there is a long-standing contention that having a belief in G-d leads and has lead to consideration of love as a worthwhile human attribute". However, if the article continues to provide a putative argument that "humans have love, therefore this is an undeniable proof that G-d exists" that would be OR and not suitable encyclopedic material. Which is it to be? NewbyG ( talk) 18:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see that I have quite likely got it wrong here. I will try again. Whatever cogent case can be sustained from the reliable sources is fine : either (A) or (B) or (Z). IMHO wrong style is to present any putative argument in Wikipedia's voice; also the satisfaction (nevertheless) of WP:NPOV is not best served by a sports contest type of exposition, for and against; Oh best of luck. NewbyG ( talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a somewhat convoluted case of synthesis involving primary sources that make this "argument". eldamorie (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. The argument appears in the writings of Alvin Plantinga, Runzo's Global Philosophy of Religion: A short introduction (as noted above), and a number of other ancient and modern books on religion. The article may need cleanup, but not deletion. -- 202.124.75.159 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/query – I think the key question is, where is the primary ___location of the "argument from love"? Is it out there in the outside world, or is this Wikipedia article itself the primary source? If the argument "appears in the writings of" various people, the article needs to show exactly where and how it does so, and how it is precisely this argument that appears there. At present the article proposes an argument for belief in a god, and it makes various nods in the direction of other people whom it claims support the argument being made: for example, there is a footnote that says "The Old Testament speaks repeatedly of God's love ...", and another that says "This type of argument was made by Alvin Plantinga in God and Other Minds." The problem here (and throughout the article) is that the primary ___location of the "argument from love" is this WP article itself, with others brought in to support the WP editor's opinions. The article completely fails to show how those other sources are the primary source of the "argument from love". This seems in fact to be recognised by those saying "keep", who all acknowledge that the article needs editing or rewriting. If it is kept, it is incumbent on those people to rewrite it so that it works as a Wikipedia article – a tertiary source – and that it is no longer merely an essay expressing its own opinions. The fact that this issue was raised (by me) over five years ago, and that in the intervening time nothing has been done to address it, makes me suspect that in fact the "argument from love" does not exist as a notable argument out there in the non-Wikipedia world. Can any of those saying "keep" demonstrate clearly that I am wrong? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup, but a decision on notability. Plenty of sources exist to permit a rewrite to an excellent article. -- 202.124.73.190 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you and others keep saying! But where are those sources, what do they say, and why has nobody, in five years, done the necessary rewrite? I suspect it's because the sources do not in fact use this particular argument. Please prove (not just assert, prove) me wrong! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are given above. If you read them, you would see they use the argument. -- 202.124.72.200 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why (I repeat) in five years, has no one been able to edit the article to show the existence of the argument in those sources? You are merely waving your hand in the direction of some alleged sources, but doing nothing to show how those sources use this argument. That's exactly what the article does, and it leads me to the conclusion I have stated above. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because AfD debates distract editors from writing articles, perhaps? -- 202.124.74.86 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be more than enough sources to establish notability. As well as what has been provided already, I have found [20], [21] and [22]. Cleanup is certainly needed; not deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you're proposing that the article should cover a whole range of disparate things that have been described as an "argument from love", as opposed to specifically an argument for the existence of god called the "argument from love"? The first of the three sources you mention is an argument for immortality; the second seems to be some sort of circular discussion starting with the assertion "god is love", and as far as I can tell it's an argument for the trinity, as opposed to god as such (god is taken as a given); and the third is altogether different - an "argument from love and justice" concerning well-ordered societies and a sense of justice (though it's not clear from what is freely available online what exactly it's about). But we don't write a Wikipedia article about a phrase that has been used in different contexts to refer to different things, just because different authors, discussing different things, happen to have used the same words. That is indeed synthesis. A Wikipedia article should be about a concept, not a coincidence of words. Where (I ask again) is the "argument from love ... for the existence of God, as against materialism and reductionist forms of physicalism", as stated in the first line of the Wikipedia article under discussion? Apart from in this Wikipedia article, where does it exist? Who has proposed it? Where? When? What have other people said about it? How has it been developed/commented on/criticised/etc? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The simplest summary of the argument, such as it is, is by Peter Kreeft here: "Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is a result of our being made to resemble God (Gen 1:26-27; James 3:0), who himself is love (1 Jn 4:8). If we are made in the image of King Kong rather than in the image of King God, where do the saints come from?" The same argument has been made by others, as noted above, and various people have criticised it. -- 202.124.74.142 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plantinga's very similar version of the argument was presented in his paper “Two Dozen [or so] Theistic Arguments,” delivered at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Conference, Wheaton College, 23-25 Oct. 1986; and republished as an appendix to: Deane-Peter Baker (2007), Alvin Plantinga, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521855314. -- 202.124.72.227 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Plantinga is in turn criticised in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin, Temple University Press, 1992, ISBN 0877229430, page 50. -- 202.124.75.220 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument also gets a filmic treatment in The Decalogue #1 -- see Yvonne Tasker, Fifty contemporary filmmakers, Routledge, 2002, ISBN 0415189748, page 216. -- 202.124.75.220 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, I'm wondering what to make of this. We have, indeed, a couple of sources arguing from love to God's existence in various ways. (Thank you, 202.124, for searching and adding these to the article.) I'm still skeptical. Just note how absent this argument is from any philosophical reference work, such as SEP and REP, and not a single hit on Oxford Reference Online, whereas the argument from design occurs in 6 or so dictionaries/companions on that site. There are loads of textbooks on the philosophy of religion, and only one rather obscure one seems to mention this argument at any length. Nevertheless, I don't see any serious harm if this article is kept as long as all the synthesis and original research is aggressively removed from the article. If only material that closely follow the sources are included, the current article would look like this. Given that "plenty of sources exist", there is no need to rely on original research. Vesal (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Vesal. Looking at your version of the article, I'd delete the "further reading" section as well. Those books have no clear relationship to the topic of the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some serious cutting was needed, so good job! However the Dawkins "Argument from emotional blackmail" comment should go (it's a response to something else), while comments about scientific explanations for love are indeed relevant and should perhaps stay. -- 202.124.74.54 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 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. Consensus favors the notion that this topic is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but apparently we do have an article on a related subject. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 3910

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

Not an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell what it's about, but it seems to be about the development of a product, with a distinctly spammy feel. No independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no claims about the notability of whatever its topic is (I agree that it's difficult to determine this from the article). It's also out of date (the 'EF2000 Typhoon' received a slight name change about a decade ago, and has long been in production). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gaahh, my eyes, they bleed. At the very least needs some WP:TNT charges and as noted the information is badly outdated and spammy - it's borderline WP:G11 even. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) standard. Just FYI. No opinion on deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have articles on some STANAGs, and I think this one merits a stand-alone article. It is mentioned in a few DTIC reports, e.g. [23], [24], and also has some coverage in this book, this book, and another book. If we don't keep the article, can we at least redirect to MIL-STD-1553, which it is closely related to? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:21, 1 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 3 March 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, v/r - T P 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MIL-STD-1553. I fail to see why this particular STANAG merits its own article. If there's some greater significance that I'm not getting, then please, fill me in, but as it is I see nothing to make this procedural agreement stand out from the other 1300. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 14 March 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. waggers (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Spelman

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

Not notable. WP:One event. Notability is NOTINHERITED. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If WP had an article for every teenager who had used drugs illegally or unwisely, especially minor cases like this, then a large proportion of the population would qualify for BLP and there would be little point in having any notability policy at all. Yes, notability is not inherited. --AJHingston (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete hasn't played at the highest level, and the only reason his illegal steroid use was "news" was because of who his mother is. Notability is not inherited. StarM 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event has been a lead story in both national Television and Radio News as well as online, see ]https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=jonathan+spelman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk] It is not the drug taking per se that is the most notable aspect, it is the High Court action. Unibond (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment then if the action is notable, there should be a brief mention there. Maybe. WP:ONEVENT StarM 02:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is a whole section Privacy injunction Unibond (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this not fall under WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it there are already four reasons for notability, playing rugby for the Harlequins, playing for the national team, the High Court case and his parents being public figures Unibond (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing rugby for a national under-16 team is marginally notable at best. As for his parents, notability is not inherited. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK discounting the notable family we still have playing for the Harlequins, the High Court case (a major news story) and playing for the <16 national team Unibond (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the guidance at Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Amateur_sports_persons is that this requires as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Is there such coverage of their sporting achievements? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable for playing rugby. If he played for the Harlequins senior team then yes, but he is just in their Academy. Age group players are virtually never deemed notable, even if they have played for the national youth team. If he continues with his rugby career then maybe he will become notable as a sportsman, but it is too early to tell at this stage and we don't predict the future. That just leaves the high court case, which is the WP:BLP1E quoted here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Playing as a professional athlete for the quins is enough to get an article. The rest is just filler. AIRcorn (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently this is just a one event and he does not yet meet the requirements at WP:RU/N. AIRcorn (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Talk:Caroline Spelman. Nowhere near GNG and a clear attempt at BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no indication of Notability whatsoever. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the several reasons listed above. If this is relevant in relation to privacy law or a sport, perhaps more suitable mention could be found in another article but not standing alone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see coverage of one event only. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Clear case. ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caroline Spelman. What makes the case notable is that she and her husband, according to source 1, are facing a six-figure legal bill over a rejected privacy injunction they sought. In this case even I'll agree BLP1E should apply, because making a separate article for him is basically just misfiling information. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's hardly even notable with that event. Even if it was it would be WP:BLP1E..Edinburgh Wanderer 22:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Also, reads in part like it about one of his parents. If this article is truly about Jonathan, recommend rewrite to remove phrase, "involving Spelman's 17-year-old son." - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that - it's all part of the 1E. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also removed some of the contentious claims about the child from the Caroline Spelman article. Collect (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Spelmans have not disputed that Jonathan Spelman took substances banned under Rugby Football Union guidelines.[25][26] However, the RFU investigation is ongoing. This would never have been an issue without the court action to stop the newspapers from publishing the information that he allegedly ordered the substances over the Internet in late 2011, and they were found at his school. The specific claims in this Daily Star Sunday article are the cause of the BLP issues. Quote from the article:

A spokesman for Quins said: “Harlequins takes anti-doping very seriously and condemns drug use in sport. In accordance with International Rugby Board Regulation 21 and to preserve the integrity of the process, the club will not comment on any current or future cases until they have been concluded and all parties informed.” The RFU issued an identical statement. A spokeswoman for Tonbridge School said: “We cannot comment on pupils in our care.”

Basically, this is at the "no comment" stage from the official parties involved, although it is not disputed that Jonathan Spelman is facing disciplinary proceedings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with whether we should keep this article? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a good deal of misunderstanding over the case, both here and at Caroline Spelman. The newspapers have jumped the gun, and a close examination of the coverage shows that Jonathan Spelman has not been punished by the RFU or Harlequins as yet, nor has he done anything which is a police matter. In view of this, there is no reason to keep the article Jonathan Spelman as it is classic WP:RECENTISM. Even at Caroline Spelman, it is not very notable other than for the injunction. Contrary to some newspaper reports, there is no official confirmation that the substances involved are steroids, only WP:WEASEL expressions like "it is understood that".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 9 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Ozsoz

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

Professor with just a few hits on Google Search and, according to the given sources, just 8 (eight) published articles/papers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The subject is an instructor, not a professor. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any notability elements for PROF. He is listed as an instructor on the SUNY website. Google scholar shows citations of 3, 2, 1, 2, etc. which is very low. In addition, no newspaper or magazine mention from a google search... Tradedia (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 2 papers and 0 citations. Most of his papers seem actually to be unpublished pre-prints uploaded to SSRN. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 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. v/r - T P 20:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simma Software

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

Unfortunately, I did not find enough reliable sources for this article. Article is also borderline advertising, so if it can be tagged as G11, feel free to do so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Baban (the author): I`ve read here about G11: Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. And I think I created this page from a neutral point of view, same as other pages that have the same subject: Vector Informatik, Wind River Systems, Green Hills Software. What can I do more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Baban (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like a last section of press release, no significant coverage in reliable sources, no long term effect on the history of the industry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert for unnotable company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've wrote more about history of the company and about the impact in his field. And also I've deleted the list of products. Please review it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura Baban (talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The impact of the company on the industry should not only be claimed, but also supported with inline citations to reliable sources as required per WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:25, 13 March 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. v/r - T P 20:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna_Masingila

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

As far as I can tell this person created the article about themselves using no citations and nobody, other than the person herself, has ever edited this page. There are no references or sources to establish notability within the field of mathematics education. Thevandaley (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thevandaley (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject clearly fails WP:PROF, and there is no indication of why this person would otherwise pass the general notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Doesn't the position of Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University qualify as notable by WP:PROF criterion 5? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not as this criterion was designed for named chairs that are occupied by one person until they retire. Two of these Meredith professorships are created each year and each is held for only three years. So far there have been over 30 people have held them: [27]. Qwfp (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I debated the "Meredith Professor" designation too, but in checking the tangibles found much less than I expected based on that title. Her CV is enormous, running 12 full pages of publications alone. However, what the databases say is appreciably less impressive. WoS shows only 3 papers with 8 total citations (h-index 1). WorldCat shows various books, most of which are not widely held, with the exception of "Teachers engaged in research" with an intermediate 185 holdings. I see a Fulbright, but I'm not sure how much this counts toward WP:PROF, given that there are 8 or 9K of these per year. No obvious sources outside of what is found in faculty web pages and blogs. Agricola44 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep to counteract our systematic bias against professors of education (and, for that matter, most of the other female-dominated professions) Syracuse is a research university of the highest quality. she's been the advisor for 13 PhD theses. This amounts to distinction as an educator. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably well-intentioned David, but with all due respect, what you're advocating here is essentially "WP social engineering". As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in any of the official notability guidelines regarding the number of PhDs graduated (certainly not in WP:PROF), or any other related activity (students advised, etc). Moreover, that argument has never even been advanced in the academic's AfD discussions as long as I can remember. I wanted to keep this one as well, as a matter of fact for very similar reasons that you cite. Unfortunately, it appears that that would require us to violate policy. My prediction is that, with such few !votes, your "keep" will trigger "no consensus" default keep, but that will mean this article will have the proverbial "asterisk" of being here by virtue of having been held to a lower standard. Socially redeeming though it may be, I think this sort of subjectivity doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. Apologies for prolixity, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not demonstrate any notability, no independent reliable sources available to demonstrate the standards required for inclusion in Wikipedia.--UnQuébécois (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS shows 392 cites with an h-index of 10. Could be a weak keep on WP:Prof#1 in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I get more hits searching my own name on Google Search than her? Does that make me notable?--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your subject area. If it is theology it would, if it is biology it wouldn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I would point out that there are professors in the education sector that WP recognizes as notable that do have publication and citation statistics that are comparable to other "higher citation" fields. For example, Michael Apple has ~750 WoS citations on 89 papers (the GS numbers are presumably much higher, I haven't checked). Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I was taking the subject area to be mathematics, but that might not be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry. I assumed that since she's in the school of education, that we were talking about "education". However, I think that the argument from the perspective of mathematics holds too. It is easy to find extremely highly cited math people on WP, though I don't know what the "average" might be. My assumption has always been that the variation in publication/citation norms among fields is how the loose rules-of-thumb of either an h-index somewhere in the 10-15 neighborhood or greater, OR a cumulative number of citations of at least a few hundred to satisfy WP:PROF #1 developed. (The "book holdings" metric seems, in my experience, to be still kind of vague.) My only concern is that there not be a perception that this article, if kept, was a result of social engineering, because I think that image is extremely anathema to WP being considered a reliable, objective source by the public at large. Agricola44 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

According to google, her h-index is 7. This is simply not enough on numerical grounds, unless evidence can be definitively produced that citation numbers in mathematics education are dramatically lower than other areas of mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the data you supply the h-index is 11. Probably not sufficient for the field of education so I am not inclined to change my comment into a vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The notability of this person was questioned by myself in the first place for the simple reason that nobody, other than her, had ever edited this page. On top of that, there is not a single citation. Is this not important to this discussion? Additionally, I wanted to test the waters for her. I am in the same field and know of a half dozen math education researchers that I would consider much more notable, none of which have wiki pages. I am fine with either a keep or a delete, but wanted primarily wanted to hear from others about this. Thevandaley (talk) 18:25, 8 March 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 Rigbie House. v/r - T P 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip's purchase

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

Article fails to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Small scale and specialized scope of the topic make ability to meet wp:notability unlikely. Article has one reference (off line so I did not check) which looks like a general history book for the immediate area. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rigbie House, which already mentions this as an alternative name. The bulk of the information here would be relevant additional information there. PWilkinson (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per above. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Rigbie House. No brainer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 14 March 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. While several participants actually favor a merge/redirect it seems that accurate information about this place is so hard to come by that it cannot even be verified definitively which article it should be redirected to. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leutes

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

This is not even a Hamlet. I crossed this area for several years and had never heard of it. It seems to be the name of a T crossing with four houses, but not even the streets nor the houses nor the bus stop carry this name. There is no Dutch lemma about it, and imho there shouldn't be one in English and Portugese, too. Erik Wannee (talk) 21:43, 20 February 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 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kesteren - I'm usually inclined to keep population centers, but calling this a "hamlet" seems inaccurate. Looking at g-maps, the nom appears correct. This appears to be part of Kesteren. If there's some historical independent designation of this place, I might change my mind.--Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kesteren I don't think there is any information worth merging so a redirect will suffice. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 09:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New 'problem': This place is exactly at the border between Buren and Neder-Betuwe. So no redirect or merge would be correct. But what are we talking about? A place of only four houses with a name that even local people don't know - Why should this have a lemma on the English Wikipedia, even as nobody in the Netherlands itself considers it worth a lemma on the Dutch Wikipedia? I bet there's more to be said about my finger nail than about this place. Erik Wannee (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It lies on the outskirts of Kesteren, see [28], so redirecting there seems to be the best option to me. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is now on the Dutch wiki as well Migdejong (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nlwp has its own rules for inclusion, it doesn't affect enwp. Wikipedia itself is never a reliable source. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant sources to proof notability. It was part of the former municipality Lienden, so it can be merged with that village, rather then with Kesteren what is a different municipality. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:52, 24 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons described above (e.g. just 4 houses), and because nobody has even attempted to dispute them. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 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. v/r - T P 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eintracht Frankfurt international footballers

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

Classic case of overlistification. Club already has a more general list of players, which is perfectly acceptable. No need for a seperate article on internationals. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this page for similar reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - these lists are overkill. Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't the content from these instead be incorporated into "List of xx F.C. players"-type lists, like at List of Birmingham City F.C. players? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want sound weird but why is this article on the deletion list and articles like List of Bristol Rovers F.C. internationals, List of Burnley F.C. internationals or List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances) are not? Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see these articles deleted either. Just give me a hint what I can do to improve it to make it worth keeping and I'll see what I can do. Cheers -Lemmy- (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two (Bristol Rovers/Burnley) are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though I would advise the nominator to also take them to AfD, depending on the consensus here. As for improvement, why not create a List of Eintracht Frankfurt footballers, which features every player to have played for them - which is what the Gillingham list, and its sister (brother? sibling!) articles do. I'd be happy to lend a hand to that, should I have time. Such lists are encouraged by us over at WP:FOOTBALL, as Category:Lists of association football players by club shows! Giant Snowman 22:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have nothing against the content being integrated into the already-existing List of Eintracht Frankfurt players article. Several featured lists of this kind such as this indicate players who have been capped whilst playing for their club. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for time being): I see where the problem is here. We already have the List of Galatasaray S.K. footballers, into which the nominated one could eventually be incorporated. However the problem is that, same as many other club players lists, this one is olso limited by +100 appereances. If the list was not limited, then we would have a full list of Galatasaray players, with no need for specific other lists (like this foreigners one), something I did with Partizan and Red Star lists, where I included all players, not having a random inclusion criterium. Now, we discussed this already in the past, and I like to point out that as much as for some editors the lists of imports are not much interesting, in many other points of the globe, they are, so probably in Turkey the idea of having listed all foreign players of some club makes perfect sense. So, in my view, either we encourage from now on the creation of complete lists which will not be limited by some random inclusion criterium, or otherwise we could allow this sort of lists to exist, if wikified and sourced, of course. As you can see, I prefer to have one complete list instead of many, and that is what I would encourage to do, however if there is no such for some particular case, I kind of regreat that the work done on this, and similar, lists, is just deleted. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with one complete list for clubs is that the list would be too long and contravene WP:ARTICLESIZE. The solution is to group players by their appearances, this can be seen in the Manchester United lists which are all of featured standard, they separate the players by less than 25 appearances, 25-99 and 100+ appearances. This is the best practice in my opinion and I would encourage the editor of the Frankfurt list to follow this model, and other editors as well. NapHit (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know how they are separated by +/- X apperances in two lists, that is what I support, no problem with that, the problem I mention is when lists are only done for the +X part, ignoring the rest, thus making legitime to make other sort of lists with different inclusion criteriums. We definitelly agree over this, the only difference is that I am not so sure that by simply deleting these lists we will be encouraging the creation of complete ones. FkpCascais (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to' List of Eintracht Frankfurt players.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The master list already includes nationality, so I see no need for a merge and little value in this kind of specialized sublist. Ideally, the master list would eventually be sortable for nationality, so that a reader could essentially duplicate the information here. I recognize that there are article size issues, but I think User:NapHit's approach is better for that issue.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both lists are (before I added references to the two Norwegian internationals that played for Eintracht) unreferenced, and violates WP:OR. I would encourage and support both lists if they were well referenced, but unfortunately they aren't. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 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 keep: nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. LadyofShalott 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Irla i Bosch

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. I have no idea how this made it through the "new page patrol" when it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge With zero sources and an obscure topic, my first question was whether or not this article is a hoax. I searched, and it appears not and some of the facts from the article were corroborated and that some sources exist. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content of the article is not a good reason to delete it. Its in six other languages, including Suomi (Finnish). The article's subject seems notable, and the article on the Catalan Wikipedia is longer and has quite a lot of content. The article's badly written but the subject is notable. Liam98 7 13:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources readily exist and some have been added, the nominator should at least observe WP:BEFORE. Valenciano (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on possible merge - I have seen suggestions on the discussions of some of the other Catalan political history articles currently nominated for deletion suggesting a merge of all these articles into one about Catalan political history. I think that of such a merge does occur, this article should not be included in the merge, and left as an independent article. Liam98 7 16:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person appears notable -- he was the last president of the Generalitat (roughly equivalent to U.S. state governor, or more precisely, to Canadian provincial premier) of Catalonia before the Civil War. Also agree with Liam987 that this should not be merged into an overview article. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:03, 3 March 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 keep: nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. LadyofShalott 02:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Labour of Catalonia

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. I have no idea how this made it through the "new page patrol" when it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Looks real, content should not be lost. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:
- There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It made it through New Page Patrol in 2005 probably because back then people adhered more to the "Make some effort to look it up yourself." ideal, for those who would aspire to be encyclopaedia writers, than they do now. It's not exactly hard to put the Catalan title into Google Books and come up with other encyclopaedias already covering it, such as the entry in Molas & Culla i Clarà 2000, p. 234 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMolasCulla_i_Clarà2000 (help) in fact. Putting not even as much effort in as did new page patrollers in 2005 is not what an AFD nominator should aim for.
- Molas, Isidre; Culla i Clarà, Joan B. [in Catalan] (2000). "Partit del Treball de Catalunya". Diccionari del partits polítics de Catalunya: segle XX. Diccionaris Enciclopèdia Catalana (in Catalan). Enciclopèdia Catalana. ISBN 9788441204669.
Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Political History of Catalonia per North8000. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:10, 3 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Front of Catalonia

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. I have no idea how this made it through the "new page patrol" when it was created and for all we know it could be plagiarism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Looks real, content should not be lost. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Political History of Catalonia per North8000. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge BlueBirdo (talk) 17:06, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Catalonia

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. I have no idea how this made it through the "new page patrol" when it was created and for all we know it could be plagiarism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Looks real, content should not be lost. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:
- There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It made it through New Page Patrol in 2005 probably because back then people adhered more to the "Make some effort to look it up yourself." ideal, for those who would aspire to be encyclopaedia writers, than they do now. It's not exactly hard to put the Catalan title — which was also the article title in 2005 — into Google Books and come up with history books already covering this part of history in depth, such as Figueres 2003, p. 121–125 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFigueres2003 (help). One history book even points to a 1981 encyclopaedia (GEC 1981) harv error: no target: CITEREFGEC1981 (help) with an entry on this. Putting not even as much effort in as did new page patrollers in 2005 is not what an AFD nominator should aim for.
- Figueres, Josep M. (2003). Història contemporània de Catalunya (in Catalan). Editorial UOC. ISBN 9788483187739.
- "Mancomunitat de Catalunya". Gran Enciclopedia Catalana (in Catalan). Enciclopèdia Catalana, S.A. 1981. ISBN 9788430055111.
Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is not purely political, as it refers to an actual governmental structure of the Catalonian provinces at the time. It is already given brief treatment in History of Catalonia, an article that's begging to be broken up into separate pages by era (it currently covers prehistory to 2005). This material should be one page, or part of one page, in a "History of Catalonia" series. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:42, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La nacionalitat catalana

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. I have no idea how this made it through the "new page patrol" when it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article on Enric Prat de la Riba, author of this book. The book itself is nonnotable except insofar as it expounds the notable opinions of its author. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:57, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia Government 1992–1995 term of office

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Basically a valid list article with notable topics.North8000 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:56, 4 March 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 withdrawal. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Catalonia Government 1995–1999 term of office

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, faulty nomination rationale. Is the nominator saying that he/she can't determine whether the government of Catalonia is "fact or fantasy"? Blanket deletion tagging is not a constructive way to improve the wiki. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the "Catalonia Government YYYY-YYYY term of office" articles. Historical composition of a provincial cabinet is not notable. Succession of "presidents of the Generalitat" (= provincial premiers) is already listed at List of Presidents of Catalonia. Breakdown of what parties held how many seats, and perhaps some prose commentary on what parties were represented in the cabinet, should be incorporated into Generalitat of Catalonia or a "History of the Generalitat of Catalonia" subpage. It's worth noting that these lists have been duplicated as navboxes to be placed on individual ministers' bio pages; cf., for example, the bottom of the Artur Mas i Gavarró article. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 6 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia Government 1999–2003 term of office

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Basically a valid list article with notable topics.North8000 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:35, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Catalonia of 1919

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of a number of nominations for AFD of articles about Catalan history where the same nominator is saying that he or she has no idea whether it is fact or fantasy. A quick glance at Google suggests that the topic is notable and the facts are broadly as given elsewhere. It really requires an editor with a good knowledge of Catalonian history and preferably Catalan to source and check this, but a blanket reference to AFD is not the way to fix it. I'm reluctant to quote WP:BEFORE, but I would encourage the nominator to withdraw these nominations and adopt a more discriminatory approach. --AJHingston (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 2 years tell me who is interested in fixing this? It's been tagged since Dec. 2009. Right now some kid is doing a book report on this and it could be pure fantasy for all I know. If it's so easy to check and source why hasn't someone done it in over 2 years of tagging? No refs. I have seen so many new articles deleted instantly by those who handle new page patrols. Those wiki assistants don't check any of those articles at google... they look at it and say this is not ready for prime time and delete it or put it in the originator's sandbox instantly. At least that's what I've seen happen dozens and dozens of times. Now it's not like this had a tag for only a month or two for zero references. It was 27 months of unknown quality where those who care ignored it. Shall we tag it and wait another 27 months? I'm not sure where the cutoff should be but 2+ years seemed pretty fair to me. So sure, if wiki administrators want me to pull the afd's I'll do so of course. A bot lead me here to check things out and I expected some of these articles would need help in a few sources or language, I've done it many many times. But never have I see an entire genre of the same poor quality completely unsourced pages, tagged as poor sometimes years and years ago, and ignored. Some were BLPs with zip references. It's no wonder wiki is backlogged. If I'm in the minority here and everyone polled says keep this as is, then no harm done. There were a dozen more I could have nominated but stopped at this bunch to make sure no one complained about the reasoning. So my question to AJ would be if new page patrols delete this quality article quickly, why after 2 years does it seem that these particular articles are allowed special treatment? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are rather a lot of articles in WP (actually many millions) which do not quote sources, fail to cite those sources to the appropriate standard, use sources that do not meet properly rigorous standards of reliability, or which are incorrect because the source is wrong or out of date. AFD is a good means of dealing with articles where there is good reason to doubt the essential truth of the article, perhaps where it seems to be made up or conflicts with available sources. But our starting point when we meet inadequately sourced articles should really be to see if we can improve them, and in many cases that will be beyond us because it will be apparent that those sources are not readily available on the web or we lack knowledge as to the most approriate RS. But just bringing every inadequate article to AFD is not helpful to others, and just overloads the system. --AJHingston (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's so easy to check and source why hasn't someone done it in over 2 years of tagging? — Why didn't you do it when you came across the article? Those wiki assistants don't check any of those articles at google. — On the contrary, they probably did, given how easy it is to turn up history books and articles with these things in, such as Molas 1983 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMolas1983 (help).
  It's you that didn't check anything. You put zero effort in, and are yourself part of the problem. Worse than the editors who did nothing, you are actively trying to make Wikipedia worse rather than better, by trying to get rid of what has been done thus far, rather than approaching Wikipedia with the mindset of "I'm claiming to be an encyclopaedia writer. So how can I write to make this better?". If you see an article without sources, try to find some. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem.
  - Molas, I. (1983). "El Projecte d'Estatut d'Autonomia de Catalunya del 1919". In Casassas, Jordi; Castellanos i Francesc Roca, Jordi (eds.). Intellectuals, tecnics i politics (1901–1936). Recerques. Vol. 14. Barcelona: Curial. pp. 69–79. ISBN 9788472562141.
- Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work (sources) not deletion. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:
- There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. Lack of notability might be, but in the case of this article notability can be established by a few seconds of google searching. This mass tagging of Catalan prods/afds is not constructive, could potentially constitute a case of WP:POINT. --Soman (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman or merge per North8000 -- though perhaps this should be merged into History of Catalonia rather than starting a "political history" page. Whether it deserves to stay a separate article depends on how notable/impactful this law really was, something we won't know until we get more sources and an editor who knows this material. Today's AFDs might make a good featured collaboration for WP:Spain or WP:Catalan-Speaking Countries. _``` t o l l _` b o o t h _` w i l l i e _`` $1.25 PLEASE _``` 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing regarding the title. The reasons I went with political history was that it is a part of Spain. So I was thinking maybe the history shoud lcover only the areas where it is distinct from Spain, which I was thinking was political. Also the content of the 12 nominated articles is all political / governance related. But I don't really know the topic, I was just doing my best. I'd defer to anybody who knows this better. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:50, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tortosa Pact

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some sources to verify the material in the article so it's longer unsourced. Valenciano (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 16:55, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tribunal de Cassació

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ^^ BlueBirdo (talk) 17:00, 4 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist Unification Movement

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 5 March 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 keep, nomination withdrawn, no other recommendation to delete. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Workers Bloc

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

There have been no improvements of sources given in over 2 years. I have no idea if anything about this article is fact or fantasy but two plus years seems enough time to fix this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments I have re-evaluated my AFD. Perhaps I should have used {{notability}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}.... except on BLP. I formally withdraw this AFD nomination. Please close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the numerous Catalonia AFD's My gut feel is that they could all meet wp:notability individually, have content which should be retained, and that they would be best consolidated into to a new article, possibly Political history of Catalonia. Between being topics that are somewhat obscure in the English speaking world, and that sources are more likely to be in Spanish explains why these articles lack editors and are hard to work on. (I.E. not due to unsuitability of the topic.) I have also posted the following at the Catalonia article:

There are about 12 Catalonia articles up for deletion (todays AFD's). Most are on obscure political historical topics, have no editors, and no sources, but good content. One suggestion would be to create a "Political History of Catalonia" article and put all of those orphans into it and bring them out of obscurity so that they can get a bit of attention. Or else give the individual article some attention.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BlueBirdo (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 5 March 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. v/r - T P 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic grading in North America

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

Delete after checking to see if there is any content that can be salvaged for the sibling articles. Academic grading is country specific and so having a continent-specific article is nonsensical. Also, it is not part of any existing article naming scheme as the red links in the footer template shows. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article Grade (education) were under 50KB, I would have chosen to say re-direct, but it is large; we also need pages for every continent (except Antarctica, which has no countries and thus an article would make no sense.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 50KB size on Grade (education) can be fixed by splitting out an Academic grading by country article but I am not sure that even that sort of article is needed. The Category:Academic grading by country and a footer template can be used for navigation. Grade (education) does not need the minutiae of the separate countries. The article could benefit from a discussion of the different systems in a broad sense. From an article name POV "Academic grading in North America" is not a notable topic unless there is a wide number of grading systems that are used across all North American countries. . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding nominator's last remark about conditions for notability, an article with this title would make sense if the grading system across North America was uniform. Now, this makes about as much sense as Academic grading in the Southern hemisphere. --Lambiam 02:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each nation's educational system is different, so this topic is a plausible one, though the analogous one ... in the southern hemisphere is not. Trying to reject an article by finding an article somewhat like it which is implausible is a non-argument. The valid topic Baseball in Cuba is not invalidated as a topic by the absurdity of Baseball in Antarctica.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the argument in the original nomination. Reforming the article content in some form might be acceptable in the long term doktorb _words^deeds 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced synthesis. No sources can be found which cover this subject matter in the intersection given. Subject matter is well-covered by country, and no regional article makes sense unless someone has covered it as a topic. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superceded. This article was started in 2005; we didn't have comprehensive articles on every country's grading systems, so we started with this. Its common sense that now we can remove this starter.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:13, 14 March 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. v/r - T P 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego The Lord of the Rings

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

Violation of WP:NOT, namely "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors"... "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate".
The less said about the "references" (a bunch of fandom blog-style sites) the better. I have found official press-releases from Lego easily enough but that's not enough to justify an article about playsets which won't be released for months. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 08:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: I found several references: [29], [30], [31], which is quite good for a product with release date "Summer 2012"; though I can't judge on reliability here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are simply a requote of the Lego press release (i.e. routine coverage) and the third contains a link to the press release whilst speculating about possible video games releases. Personally, I would not consider the sites reliable sources either (although that point could be argued). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Though right now WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies, deletion seems impractical, as we have the release date and there is realistic hope of developing a decent-sized article as Lego generally receives some independent coverage. I would suggest following the established precedent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe there is a link to the official website of Lego to Lego The Lord of The Rings on the article. It is also here: [32]. Also, since the product will be released soon, the article will be remade if it is deleted, so why delete it in the first place?--Streona (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article would only be suitable for recreation if there were multiple, independent references from reliable sources demonstrating notability and there was realistic hope of developing a decent-sized article (WP:PRODUCT). As it stands, WP:CRYSTAL applies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there would be realistic hope of expanding the article once the product is released. However, I think that the official Lego website showing Lego The Lord of The Rings is suitable for the time being.--Streona (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per czarkoff; look at the template we have for Lego, this certainly needs coverage. Only coming by since this AfD is ANCIENT.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources currently available seem to show enough notability, but likely in less than a month this will be indisputable. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 14 March 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. v/r - T P 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream War

AfDs for this article:

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

No real claim of notability made. Yes, it was a finalist in a competition. But it wasn't a winner, and the competition is not particularly notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Prosapio (2nd nomination). Bazonka (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —Ed!^(talk) 08:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. As I said in the AfD for the author, this novel just doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to show how its notable and the sources in the article are mostly about the author and the contest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three non-trivial, independent, RS demonstrate that it meets the GNG. Merging to author's page might also be acceptable as an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK. All sources are "local boy makes good." I see no coverage of the book sufficient to warrant inclusion. Pretty clear self-promotion. BusterD (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a practical matter, let's merge into Stephen Prosapio, which is short enough and can easily accommodate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that in nominated for deletion too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 14 March 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. waggers (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Freeland

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Claire Freeland

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

Another TBrandley (talk · contribs) contribution, this time a minor executive of a Canadian media conglomerate. Article reads as a resume (the serious parts of that essay at least) and is mainly sourced to her company's website, IMDb and her LinkedIn account. Again, the article creator has ignored my pleadings about our inclusion criteria I brought up in a previous AfD nom this week. Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better, more reliable sources can be found. —Ed!^(talk) 08:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what about, The Hollywood Reporter sources on the article? --TBrandley (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reading is that it's just translating the Rogers press release straight on into article form. There's no further investigation of the subject's history by THR beyond the PR. Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, another useless article by TB JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 March 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 Deleted. Many comments below cite the WP:BLP1E policy as a reason to delete. Some comments suggest that she was already notable before the "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" panel, however the text in the Wikipedia article does not support that argument, nor is there sufficient evidence provided here in the comments. I recommend that those who believe she is notable contribute to our article "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy", and continue discussing notability on the discussion page of that article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke

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

Comment She's not (yet?) notable. I'm not sure if she constitutes a reasonable search term as a redirect for something like Rush Limbaugh controversies or Criticism of Rush Limbaugh... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE A breakout article has been created at Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, with a summary at Sandra Fluke#Rush Limbaugh Controversy with Fluke. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could whatever admin closes this also close WP:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, where it is SNOWing? We really don't need two articles on this. Speciate (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have started a post at WP:ANI about the number of new accounts springing up to !vote here. I respectfully ask that no one close this until someone has had a chance to go through these !votes and strike the appropriate ones. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
!votes are not struck without proof of misdeeds, which is lacking. I've marked 11 comments as WP:SPA, someone marked at least one other. We should leave it to the closing admin to separate the wheat from the chaff. Besides, it doesn't matter what the vote tally is, this isn't a democracy, the decision will be based on the strength of the arguments, not the quantity. I'm staying out of this one, not !voting or offering an opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After reading over Ms. Fluke's wiki page as well as the proposed, merged with Rush Limbaugh-Fluke page, I believe Ms. Fluke's page is essential in representation of factual truth in order of events. The proposed 'merged' page would not provide enough information in regards to Ms. Fluke's political past(undergrad, affiliations, etc) to paint a clear picture for a base of reference for an individual to become fully educated upon the reason of her fame(Limbaugh slirs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevealed (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Trevealed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment not yet notable? how many sources from quality news sites do you need? she's both notable and verifiable. Paintedxbird (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What an incredibly ridiculous article, and what an incredibly abusive exploitation of Wikipedia. The article's author is blatantly biased, WP:PROMOTION as evident from the "also see" references. It doesn't matter how carefully worded the article is in its appearance to appear unbiased and factual--it's still a propganda piece. Carefully word Mein Kampf and it'd still be a work of horror. Worst of all, we do NOT want Wikipedia to become a harbor for propagandists, political bullies, or falsifiers. What one does NOT say can be as damning of the author as what one DOES say. Delete this piece of trash-faux-journalism FOR SURE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.154.217 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — 72.181.154.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Altered at 17:43, 6 March 2012 by 209.6.69.227, who had already added an unsigned "delete" comment here.[reply]
Strong Keep She has done multiple interviews on multiple networks. She is both notable and verifiable. While she is new in the eyes of the public, I doubt she is a "one-event" wonder. She isn't now. She was denied the ability to testify before congress (1 news story). Did so to Democratic members (2 News Stories). Got Attacked by Rush (3 News Stories) Did multiple interviews (4 News Stories). Even beyond that, she has been an active voice in NY State politics before any of this. She advocated for changes in domestic law and those changes happened. That also provides evidence that she is a notable person.Casprings (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrarian comment I think the number of hits a Wik article up for deletion has (as found in the history section)should be considered in the decision to keep/delete/move/re-name. We have to let Wik grow and morph some-what, to remain a meaningful tool. Kdammers (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was only one event; the denial of a chance to testify. All else is media circus around the event. Speciate (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I agree, but let's suppose for a moment that you're right and it's a mere media circus around junk food news. Does Wikipedia policy distinguish between events and non-events? If the latter are verifiable, I hadn't thought so. (Certainly it writes up plenty of people of dubious achievement: Paris Hilton, Jade Goody, etc.) Wikipedia is of course not a reliable source, but here's what it says about junk food news: a sardonic [sic; surely sarcastic or similar is meant] term for news stories that deliver "sensationalized, personalized, and homogenized inconsequential trivia", especially when such stories appear at the expense of serious investigative journalism (my emphasis). Newspapers have a given number of pages, TV stations a given number of hours, news companies a given number of salaried employees. No such limits here, and it's not as if work on a biographical/political article is likely to divert the attention of mathematically-minded contributors from improving the article on the Curtis–Hedlund–Lyndon theorem, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it does WP:NOTNEWS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - sardonic is appropriate. [33] Dennis Brown (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just had a look at WP:DEL-REASON and this falls under none of the categories. Paintedxbird (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SINGLEEVENT. Adding it to the article on Limbaugh and making this a redirect would be fine per the WP:SINGLEEVENT rules. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best to file under Limbaugh, Rush, and delete article. Congressional testimony unremarkable WP:NOTADVOCATE and full of factual inconsistencies. Limbaugh criticism turning from a factual critique to obscenity is the story, and generally condemned by politicians of all stripes WP:ONEEVENT. Certainly newsworthy, but both conservative and liberal zealots confuse the issues WP:PROMOTION . Debates and edit wars becoming a non-factual free for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is very notable, it's currently involving the most senior politicians in america, is being covered internationally and is an ongoing story that'll likely continue for a while yet. this isn't even a question about notability or verifiability as the evidence is crystal clear. it's a major case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Paintedxbird (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vernon. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:37pm • 07:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is a guideline, but WP:BLP1E is a WP:POLICY. Speciate (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While it's always possible she will go on to write a book or something, as of this moment, people only know her for the controversy of the one event WP:NOTSOAPBOX . Fails to have any lasting significance worthy of an article to me. —Ed!^(talk) 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's what WP:BLP1E says, with my own comments on this: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event,[1] and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,[2] we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.[3] [1] Yes, this is her. [2] We simply don't yet know if her profile will remain low. However my reading of the policy is that it's designed to protect the privacy of people whose privacy has temporarily been interrupted by events outside their control; by contrast, before Limbaugh commented, Fluke had volunteered to raise her profile quite some way. [3] There is no event article (or there wasn't the last time I looked). Perhaps it would be a good idea to create one, and (at least in the short term) have her name redirect there. ¶ Mr. Vernon's suggestion above of having her name redirect to the article on Limbaugh would be a very bad idea in at least two ways. First, the guardians of the article on Limbaugh would strenuously oppose importation of much material as skewing the coverage of him. Secondly, for anybody's name to redirect to the article of somebody who spoke of her as Limbaugh did of Fluke seems like adding Wikipedia insult to injury. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." and "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Note, 'If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.' - the POTUS called this individual about this topic. If this is to be included in another article I would suggest those recommending deletion suggest potential homes. -- non-registered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.113.162 (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — 205.178.113.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete agrere with Vernon and Jason. Regarding Hoary's comments, this isn't a forum where we try to protect people's feelings. It is as close to an unbiased recitation of the facts as possible. This is a news story because of Mr. Limbaugh's comments. Had he not made them, it is unlikely her presence before the Democratic House members would have garnered significant media coverage outside of C-SPAN. The most fitting place for this piece is in the (undoubtedly) lengthy list of controversies instigated by Rush Limbaugh, and therefore on his page. Recommend delete/merge into Limbaugh's article(s). Daimb (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)— Daimb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

However unlikely Limbaugh-independent media coverage may have been, it occurred. The Beast: "Sandra Fluke Wanted to Speak Up for Women Before Congress". Ms: "Sandra Fluke Testifies at House Democratic Steering Committee Hearing". Another right-wing pundit wrote independently of Limbaugh: "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate". (Yes, yes, the last one sounds like a piece from The Onion.) There's quite a bit more; simply google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") for it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why delete an article about a scholar whom I heard of (N.B. I live in Europe, the Netherlands) two weeks ago (so: well before the gossip started) through the news about chairman Darrel Issa denying her to testify before a House or Senate comittee and retain an article about a talk show host?

The 'event' or 'non-event' discussion is a question of personal taste. If the article is of decent enough quality: then keep. Sintermerte (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia has special policies regarding living people, read about it at WP:BLP. Speciate (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she may sue Limbaugh, suggesting that there is a slim chance that Wikipedia, and whatever admin closes this as keep, could also be sued. Speciate (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the existence of an article here about her brings the risk that Wikipedia would be sued for it? I don't follow. I'd be interested in an explanation. (Incidentally, the text of the CSM article you link to doesn't suggest to me that she'll sue him, though of course its title raises this possibility.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speciate, please read WP:NLT and do not make what amounts to threats or predictions of legal action against Wikipedia, or its editors or admins. Edison (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that we suspend this discussion for the time being. My leanings toward the discussion are for deletion because this largely regards a single event. I think, however, that this may become something more, so I would suggest that we wait a bit, and if nothing happens, integrate the relevant information into Rush Limbaugh's article, or perhaps an article about this birth control debate as a whole. Tealwisp (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E in my book. Best treated in a section on Rush's article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:BLP1E was written for this type of article. If she becomes prominent for something else later on, this should certainly be part of such a future article. We certainly can find this again at that time. --McDoob AU 93 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She testified, has openly interviewed, was caught in a major controversy, and is not making headlines about potentially filing a lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh. She is a law student taking action, a citizen called to testify before congress, and the subject of controversy. No question this entry is proper and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melabruha (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of individuals over the years meet those qualifications (citizens before Congress, law students, etc.), yet they don't have articles here unless they've done something else. What makes this one so special? --McDoob AU 93 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be the level of media coverage? "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" Casprings (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Persistent" doesn't mean "level".--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all coverage of a single event. But let's look at what you just mentioned ... persistance. This issue will old news in a few days, Ms. Fluke will go back to being a law student, Rush will go back to his radio show, and the rest of the world will discover something new to pique their curiosity. Unfortunately, it'll probably be something like who to vote for on American Idol, but that's the nature of our instant news cycle. Here today, gone tomorrow, forgotten next week ... not the best subject for a Wikipedia article. --[ip redacted] 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

How many days makes it Persistent? Its been a national news item sense 16 Feb., the date of the original congressional hearing. How much longer before it becomes "persistent" Also, this does dismiss any earlier work she did that is mentioned in the bio. Casprings (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and the center of a lot of controversy, especially at the moment. As Tealwisp says above there is quite a potential for this to become more notable as well, their idea about a solution to this (integration into Rush Limbaugh article or elsewhere) may turn out to be the best solution. Subverted (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, at least for the time being. This is a story receiving a lot of media attention at the moment, with a very reasonable claim to be notable by our standards. It's too soon to delete the article; we should wait and see how it develops to see if there is a real case of lasting notability here. I recognise the WP:BLP1E point, but at best that's an argument for renaming this to Sandra Fluke controversy rather than deleting it. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Strong Rename - Per Robofish, and definitely don't move this to article on Limbaugh, per argument 205.178.113.162 (guardians of Limbaugh article unlikely to be receptive). Also per Robofish, possible intermediate step is to rename page to Sandra Fluke controversy and tone down her biography and add detail on issues at hand, which are most clearly notable/encyclopedic for the long term. Adding her bio page later would be easy once it's clear she is notable beyond single issue, and Wikipedia can still provide the key information about the controversy now (while not being a news site, clearly a lot of people will try to get a view of this issue from WP). Stevemidgley (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Base it on number of hits. I searched specifically for her wiki, and was glad to find it. I would say keep based on desire of the public to have easily accessed information even about temporary situations. Pillowmurder (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and good, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Anybody interested in this individual can find information through Bing and Google. Whenever the next major news story hits, this individual will be long forgotten. --McDoob AU 93 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per classic WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Doesn't match at all.Phd8511 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The longer this goes on, the more this comes to mind.
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources
Lets accept that it is WP:BLP1E, which I don't. How much news coverage do you need to conclude that the individual is significant for one event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's already past "one event" and has received enough coverage for her statements, and the reaction to them, to be notable. Neutron (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what is the "second event"? --McDoob AU 93 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rejection of her proposed testimony before a Congressional committee is one event, and Rush Limbaugh's comments and the reaction to them, and the later apology, is at least one event, perhaps more. However, after reviewing WP:BLP1E again, I don't think that portion of the policy supports deletion. The idea there is to protect people who have a low profile, and who seek to maintain a low profile, from being the subject of an article based solely on one event. This person is an activist on a particular issue, has sought a high profile on that issue, and to at least some degree has achieved it. I think the arguments on this page about "one event" are really about notability, not protecting a BLP, so what may be applicable here is the guideline WP:1E, not the policy WP:BLP1E. The language of 1E is not airtight, it is really just a series of suggestions. The real question is, has this person become notable? I think she has. Neutron (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Temporarily newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The article is just a coatrack for politics anyway. Peacock (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Truthsort (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This transcends Rush Limbaugh. She first gained notice by getting blocked by the senate + has done multiple interviews on multiple networks. 17:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.22.45 (talk) — 108.226.22.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply Sandra Fluke is not"likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has she announced she's running for Congress or something? Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Testified before Congress. Interviewed on national TV. Subject of nationally syndicated radio talk show (Limbaugh). Sympathetic phone call from President of the United States. Public apology by Limbaugh(!) Unquestionably notable. Blake Burba (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For a single event - her congressional testimony. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply. The controversy regarding Issa and his committee and Fluke being prevented from testifying as a witness was an event and Limbaugh is another event. While they are related they are still separate. She is notable if only because for a period of time the whole controversy she is a part of has dominated the news. pearsonaj Pearsonaj (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)— Pearsonaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep. Fluke's testimony is now in the U.S. Congressional Record, and this incident has sparked enormous debate and traffic around the American Web. Fluke's background, and the record of her encounter with Limbaugh, and the subsequent Internet-based outrage, will be of interest to Internet historians as an example of new, Web-based media interacting with (and overpowering?) potent structures of the "old media", such as the iconic host of American conservative talk radio.--A.M. Cascorbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.88.14 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — 67.189.88.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response This is crystal-balling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Koavf. You say This is crystal-balling, pointing to a section of WP:What Wikipedia is not that's about articles purveying unverifiable speculation. Where or how is A M Cascorbi suggesting an article that would include unverifiable speculation? -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single event This poster is claiming that the biographical article in question is meaningful because it's not simply a BLP1E example, but something that will be a notable part of the clash of media in the future. We can't know that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we cannot. But WP:CRYSTAL is completely irrelevant here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not if your rational for keeping is "someday, this will be important." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the page that you cite. It's about the content of articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a neutral source of information about this controversial person/issue. I searched her name here specifically looking for impartial truths (and how to properly pronounce her name) and couldn't believe folks thought it should be deleted! Bleika1 (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)— Bleika1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Break 1

Strong Delete She is a nonentity whose notoriety is entirely based on being insulted by Rush Limbaugh. In thirty days, no one will remember her. Her 15 minutes is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.186.183 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — 72.102.186.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I hadn't realized that she was notorious. She is, however, known. Moreover, she's known quite independently of Limbaugh; simply google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") to see for yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete She's not a notable figure anywhere outside of one of her fan's imaginations. There's nothing remarkable about her other than the fact that she was insulted by someone famous (unlike her). This is not worthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.106.72 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — 174.75.106.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Everyone is quick to delete everything around here. The article is not gibberish, as many articles suggested for deletion are, and its topic is notable enough, even if the notability is recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintin3265 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if deleted, to Rush Limbaugh#Fluke media flap, and take out anything that's just about her - except what is related to the media flap over her nationally-publicized remarks on contraception and Limbaugh's criticism of (1) the points she made and (2) her personally; the bipartisan backlash against Limbaugh for making personal attacks on Fluke; and his response to that backlash. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really fair to make her a part of Rush's page given the comments Rush made. That does seem like an injustice that the only place she would be mentioned is in his page.Casprings (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to dispense justice. Had Rush not mentioned her at all, nobody today would know who she is, regardless of testimony before Congress. When you boil it down, that's the "one event" that triggers WP:BLP1E in this case. Testifying before Congress isn't notable. Being mentioned by Rush Limbaugh, ultimately, isn't notable either. --McDoob AU 93 17:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable is judged by persistance of media coverage, per wiki. A national story, as written about in national media, has been going on since 16 Feb. How many more days before it is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's persistent media coverage over a single event. Her sole claim to notability is being mentioned by Rush. Being denied the chance to testify (especially when the rules aren't followed, as was the case then) isn't notable.--McDoob AU 93 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you on what the policy means with respect to persistence. The policy is referring to persistence of the news coverage on the single event ("The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.") (emphasis added by me) However, there is no brightline rule as to how much time has to pass to reach "persistence". This kind of juicy stuff usually lasts a while, so it would be quite some time before I think it reaches that level.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiki:

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Moving beyond rather this is one event or several, how persistent does the coverage have to be to qualify for article, like John Hinckley? It is an honest question.Casprings (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can concede that point. At the same time, there should be due consideration given to the event itself. The main reason for "persistent" coverage of this is because it's an election year, not because of what actually occurred. As I mentioned a while back, an attempted presidential assassin (the exception case for WP:BLP1E) is notable regardless of what else is going on, because it's rare. Everything about this event screams non-notable when compared to that. --McDoob AU 93 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is doted with one hit wonder bands and other example. Are these the standards? One has to develop some sort of objective standard. If you are going judge it by media coverage, then how many "days" of media coverage is persistent? It is hard to judge events by saying, "well, this happened this year, therefore it is not notable. Casprings (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's only notable for the controversy. Mention only on Rush's page if it is mentioned at all. At the very least rename. - Xcal68 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:
Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)

Per Hoary, Subverted, Robofish, Stevemidgley, I'm thinking of being bold and moving the article to Sandra Fluke controversy.

But this would change the discussion from (a) whether we should have an article on the law student to (b) whether we should have an article on the controversy surrounding her Congressional testimony and Rush Limbaugh's response to her testimony. Is this okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing she would be "known" for is being called a slut by Limbaugh. This seems unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is why she is notable. Let me ask you, had you considered creating the article before Limbaugh's comment? - Xcal68 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against move. I think it would be confusing. If the consensus is to keep the material and rename it, fine, but, otherwise, why make this AfD any more difficult and contentious than it already is?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per Paintedxbird's comment - how many sources do you need to consider her notable? There's a ton of prominent coverage of her. This is one of the most egregious instances of rampant and unfettered deletionist tyranny on Wikipedia.Ashwinr (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The basis for deletion, WP:BLP1E, is flawed, and at odds with WP:CRYSTAL. WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." How are we supposed to predict if she is likely to remain a low profile individual? Until the guideline gets its own house in order, keep the article and wait a year or two to see how this shakes out. Or go with WP:1E, a better written guideline, and follow the advice that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Somebody go write an article about the event, and then see how things look. Merging into Rush Limbaugh is a terrible idea; there are many more topics intersecting in this event than just him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is what it is, just like everything else at WP, and until it changes, we have to apply it as best we can. One thing it is not, though, is a guideline; it's policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It says right at the top "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." See also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. We most certainly do not have to follow BLP1E, particularly when we are up against an glaring flaw in the policy. We cannot delete or keep pages based on our own guesses about the future. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, now, a policy is a guideline, and a guideline is a policy? These are terms of art on Wikipedia and they mean differrent things: "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (WP:PG) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you're right. I should have called it a policy. A flawed policy, in this specific instance because the most relevant part of the policy is impossible to apply. Anyone who thinks they know whether Fluke will continue to be low profile or not is engaging in flim flam much worse than sophistry. Whether it's a policy or guideline, we do not have to obey it blindly. We have good, solid, workable alternatives whenever policy fails us. We have good precedent for ignoring policy when necessary. We really need to get that bit about guessing who will do what in the future out of the policy page. What a nightmare. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Maybe rename 'Sandra Fluke incident or something. (1) This incident has drawn so much attention that people want more context, and it deserves more than a side paragraph in Rush Limbaugh, where she is depersonalized into the woman he called a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled". There is nothing about Fluke herself in Rush Limbaugh. If we quote attacks against someone in Wikipedia, we should also show what she is really like as a person. (2) She's also notable for not being allowed to testify before Congress. So there's a good case that she is WP:NOTABLE and we should keep the entry even without renaming it. --Nbauman (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again: Consensus is building at Talk:Sandra Fluke for a WP:Summary style breakout article (see also WP:Splitting). I intend to do the same here as I did with Park51 and the Park51 controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E Notability begins and ends with this event and, in my opinion, only because it's an election year. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO and GNG through significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Nothing here contrary to WP:BLP1E. Her attempt to testify, and the denial by Rep. Issa was one event. Her subsequent testimony before some Democrats was a second event. The attacks on her by Limbaugh was the third event. She defended herself in interviews: event four. President Obama called her to chat: Event five. Five is not equal to one. (There may be more earlier events which got notice in the preceding 30 years of her life, and events after the Limbaugh attacks). A rename to the incidents would be acceptable. Edison (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Fuzzy math, I think.... Would driving to Capitol Hill be yet another event? Finding a parking place before testifying? Using the ladies room on her way out of the hearing? Several of your 'events' are consequences/reactions to the 1 event - Rush's slamming her. Her attempt to testify is not even close to being "an event"... Her name was submitted late. Nothing notable. The rest is related only to 1 thing... Wikipelli ^Talk 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If driving to capitol hill landed you on the front page of a dozen newspapers, then that would indeed be an event. It's not for us to decide: our sources tell us what is an event and what isn't. Discussion like this get far off track when editors want to define things like this on their own -- or predict what the subject will do in the future -- rather than stick to the facts we have been given by our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wikipelli. I was laughing when I read Edison's comments parsing the "events". BTW, Dennis, thanks for your comments above about policy vs. guideline (very gracious).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those events got widespread news coverage. Wikipelli's silly example of "driving to capitol hill" didn't. Rush's "apology" was another event which got coverage, and her rejection of the "apology" is yet another event covered by worldwide newsmedia. Or the entire series of events could be covered by one article about the series of events, as one more "controversy" involving Rush, rather than a bio article about the individual Rush attacked this time. Edison (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nbauman and others. Contrary to various comments above, she was in the news before Limbaugh took her up. I have already pointed this out above, but it seems that many people are much happier to utter their assumptions about her notability than to read the comments that have already been made, let alone to use a search engine for themselves. So let me explain again, and elaborate. You google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh") for it. Then you click on the News option. The results will be Sorted by relevance. Instead, take the option of Sorted by date. You'll get the latest first, so to see how coverage of her started, simply go to the last page (as of a few minutes ago, the 13th). You'll then see such hits as: "Democratic Women Walk Out of 'Freedom of Religion' Hearing", Religion Dispatches, 16 February; "Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed", The Nation, 16 February; "Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception", ABC News, 16 February; "Rep. Darrell Issa's 'Religious Freedom' Sausage Fest", Mother Jones, 16 February; "Dems decry all-male House panel on WH contraception rule", CBS News, 16 February; "House Democrats walk out over all-male panel on contraception", Guardian, 16 February; "Woman Denied by Republican Darrell Issa Gives Testimony on Ed Show", Technorati, 17 February; "'Where are the women?' Outrage after birth control hearing is led by panel of five men", Daily Mail, 17 February; "'Where Are the Women?': Lawmakers Walk Out on Contraception Rule Hearing After Female Witness Barred", Democracy Now, 17 February; "Where are the women", Ms, 17 February; "Meet the ‘Inappropriate’ Female Witness Barred From Speaking at the Birth Control Hearing", Jezebel, 17 (?) February; "In Contraception Fracas, Pelosi and Other Dems Schedule Own Hearing", National Journal, 21 (?) February. If you want more hits, Google (or Bing, or Yahoo, or Duckduckgo) is your friend. ¶ But hang on, some may reasonably object: all you've done is to show that this one event started before Limbaugh; nevertheless, it's one (slightly protracted and complex) event; therefore her name should redirect somewhere. I'm sympathetic to this opinion. But where should it redirect? I'd suggest to United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, this is a strange article indeed. Its last and longest section is titled Recent events, 1997-2009. The title is appropriate: coverage stops in 2009. (And its page history shows that no, the article hasn't been vandalized.) Well, a move of the material on Fluke would throw this article on HCOGR off balance. And therefore, unless anyone has a better idea, Fluke keeps her article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two things briefly. First, I don't agree that the event starts with Limbaugh. It starts with the hearing and everything else is just a reaction, but, unlike Edison, all part of the same event. Second, I don't think not having anywhere to redirect an article is a valid reason for keeping it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you and I already agree to a considerable extent. However, you want the article deleted per BLP1E. As I've said, I'm partly persuaded by this idea. For a moment, let's assume that you're right. Now, the one event in which Fluke has taken a major role has obviously achieved Wikipedia-defined notability. Ergo, it should be written up somewhere. But what is this one event and where should it be written up? Or are you saying "Yes, it could and perhaps should be written up, but I can't be bothered to think where the right place should be, so let's just delete it"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the one event "has obviously achieved Wikipedia-defined notability". The whole point for those of us who have !voted delete is that it has NOT satisfied BLP1E or that BLP1E requires its deletion, however you want to put it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you say that what notability she does have (and perhaps this isn't much), is for one event. Now, what is this one event? I'd be surprised if you can define it in a way that both is convincing and lacks an adequate amount of reliable sourcing. However, my mind is open; please enlighten me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this page was so well put together that it should stay and we need to think about what will happen in the future she has had several opportunities to speak with the press and possibly has a bright future in human rights issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzM23Xrhrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.106.40 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — 69.107.106.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Break 2

Delete This falls under WP:NOTSOAPBOX It can be considered defamation and libelous along with Limbaugh-Fluke flap which should be up for deletion with this. They both fall under what Wikipedia is not and could be breaking laws so it must be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What law? They just state the comments that he and other made. Casprings (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States defamation law Theworm777 (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're wrong - defamation and libel are in no way implicated by the article or this discussion. I think it would be better for everyone if you would refrain from such statements in the future. Nathan^T 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like someone closed the discussion. [34] --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some person removed the AfD template, but it has since been restored. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: textbook case of BLP1E, and with the creation of Limbaugh-Fluke flap no need to have this article. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the one event, Lionelt? It's not a flap with Limbaugh, because (as I have shown very close above) there was plenty of coverage of her before Limbaugh talked about her. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: many new editors showing up to !vote here. Can we have one of those "If someone asked you to come here... this is not a vote..." banners added? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We certainly can, and I thought of adding it myself. On the other hand, the comments here by new editors are civil enough, and seem on average hardly less informed than do those by experienced editors. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.:From outside the US, the story started when she was denied the opportunity to testify to the Issa committee, symbolic that no woman was involved. When she did testify, she brought to everybody's attention that health care in the US is not just between a patient and a doctor; that employers and insurers make harmful judgements that they ought to have no business making. Then comes Limbaugh, and his rant about her imagined sex life, gratuitous insults included. Limbaugh made the story a firestorm, but has successfully derailed the importance of her testimony. Googling "Sandra Fluke" excluding results mentioning Limbaugh, as other have suggested, is very useful. Trishm (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.: Much has already been said, other than I suspect much of the Keep/Delete discussion itself has to do with the political controversies. Those who agree with her I suspect vote "keep" those who disagree with her "delete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalongod (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is an inappropriate conjecture, per WP:CIVIL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual has gained significant prominence over a relatively short amount of time, which is not grounds for deletion. In addition, the whole controversy over Rush Limbaugh's comments have gained notoriety of such significance that I feel this page has the qualifications for remaining. DarthBotto_talk•cont 04:29, 05 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. The event in question is her non-testimony before the congressional committee. Everything else is just media flap and fall out from that; this coverage looks broad enough to warrant mention at some article, but we hold biographies of living persons to a higher standard. I think a more instructive search than those described above is to use the date delimiting option. This returns a number of results, but they all relate to: (1) Fluke's activities as a law student (useful if we were reviewing a grant application, but they do not establish notability); or (2) older articles with newer material appended (a flaw in the limiter algorithm). In my uninformed layperson's opinion, I think that there is a good chance that she intends to become a public figure at some later point, but for now we do not have the sourcing necessary to construct an article with any depth about the person that is not just a coatrack for an article about the event (with apologies to the people who worked on the article, as it is pretty decently written and covers all the major points I could find). FiveColourMap (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some truth in what you say, but after her non-testimony to the committee came her testimony to the other committee (or pseudo-committee as it's sometimes unkindly termed); coverage of this (such as a syndicated article by Dana Milbank that's here and elsewhere) does talk about the non-testimony but it also talks about the testimony. Newsworthily and columnworthily, the prez of Georgetown University very publicly praised her for this testimony; true, the praise wouldn't have come without the attack, but he did choose to utter public praise of her. This makes her rather extraordinary among law students. At this point, I might bring up a list of nobodies who have articles in WP, whereupon you or others would (very rightly) point me to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So instead, here are a couple of articles that were kept (and not via "no consensus") in recent AfDs: Jasmin Bhasin, Ghanem Ibrahim al-Hassan; I have trouble believing that Fluke's notability (whether Wikipedia-style or real-world) is less than theirs. -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or less then losing contestent in season ___ of American Idol or whatever non-relevent and unknown piece of pop culture. I created the page because I search for it. It wasn't there. I was honestly surprised, so I created it. To me, this whole debate is silly. What the heck is the level of media coverage needed for being "notability." Wiki certainly has many articles of people much less notable (second tier people running for office, for example). Wiki says the stands is persistence of media coverage. That always brings me the question. How many days is persistent? If you are going to take the article down, at least do it for some objective measurable reason. Right now, to a "new editor", it simply looks like you are picking and choosing. Casprings (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entry is libel against Rush Limbaugh. It claims that he said that women who use contraception want to be paid for sex. This is patently false. Additionally, he is not against birth control, which this claim implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.131 (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If an assertion in an article is not backed with reliable sources, or if you can present reliable sources to show that an assertion backed with less reliable sources is false, then you may edit the article accordingly, or at least state your objection on its talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge and redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by WP:BLP1E. FurrySings (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy. Even if she's only notable for one thing it's still notable. Maybe if she does other notable stuff this article can go back up. AddThreeAndFive (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge, and redirect to Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke Controversy. How is she "an important and newsworthy person" apart from her testimony before congress (and its consequences)? If this is the case, I am amazed she didn't *already* have a page *before* all of this. But she didn't. And she shouldn't now. No-brainer application of WP:BLP1E. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a proposal [35] to merge Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy into Rush Limbaugh. If both Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and Sandra Fluke are deleted, there will be no place for the article contents to go. At most, only one should be deleted. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is coverage from some news sources, such as BBC News for example. I'm just not sure if this source is reliable enough to make the person notable. Other than that, there is some encyclopaedic information that are accurately referenced. Minima © (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. It's BLP1E because if Rush hadn't opened his mouth there'd be no article, and COATRACK because it's much more about the incident than the person, and always will be unless this person gains further notability. There are several arguments here that amount to "We should keep this article until we see if further notability is established". No, if further notability is established we can create another article. Since when was an article subject "notable until proven non-notable"? Another unconvincing argument: "She has Google hits from before the Limbaugh controversy", with an attempt to prove this by a Google search for sandra fluke -limbaugh. If you look closely at the search results, you'll see that most references are from the past few days, with a few from around the time she was just about to testify. The rest are mostly blogs. szyslak (t) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.: Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page

To merge her with Rush Limbaugh is an insult to this young woman. Merge the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy to her page on Wikipedia. She is an important and newsworthy person in her own right and I am betting we hear more from her. Instead of merging everything towards Limbaugh as if he is the important one here is a negative to all women who are outraged by his conduct and who seeks to learn more about this woman. I just Google her today and her bio page is where I went, not his and not the controversy page. Keep her page and merge the dispute to her page. This is not the end of this I feel and she certainly is news worthy for her advocacy. JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If that nutjob atheist who shot the congresswoman deserves his own page so does she. --Protostan (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

Strong Keep: Clearly notable incident and person. If contents ends up in something like Resignation of Shirley Sherrod or Balloon boy hoax to assuage the BLP1E'ers so be it, it doesn't fool anyone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of on both sides on this issue. Originally BLP1E was BLP1BE (i.e. one bad event), and it was excluded because it unfairly painted the whole life of an individual based on a single bad event that generated notoriety. This case is a little different, and roughly analogous to the Joe the Plumber issue handled in this deletion discussion. In that case the article was kept by the administrator, and that ultimately proved to be the correct decision. Based on that, my vote is keep for now. Nathan^T 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. " and this WP:NOTSOAPBOX is one of them. So Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability dont matter and is voided read it. Its a fact.Theworm777 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how NOTSOAPBOX is related to this article? And verifiability is a core policy; there are no circumstances in article space where it doesn't matter or is void. Nathan^T 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as this non-trivial coverage shows Sandra Fluke is covered by sources outside of the Limbaugh incident. Per Hoary, google "sandra fluke" -limbaugh (note the hyphen in front of "limbaugh"), and you will see Fluke has notability outside of the Limbaugh incident.VR _talk 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete (but Merge with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy) - Google's a weak way to gauge notability. You could get a lot of my past with my pseudonym, but it doesn't make me notable. She could end up becoming a James O'Keefe-like figure in the future, earning notability, but for now she's just one of tens if not hundreds of thousands who have managed 15 minutes of fame over the years. Also, I'd like to add my concern over WP:SOAPBOX as she does have a history of activism. (and for full disclosure sake, I do agree with some, but not all, of her positions) Sarysa (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Hoary, Neutron et al. Writegeist (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - WP:BLP1E particularly considering Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy also exists-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Wikipedia does not need more vandal magnet pages that will need to be perpetually defended from crap like this [36]-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete because it might get vandalized" is not typically a strong argument. Nathan^T 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the article has had to be locked to prevent vandalism "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" certainly comes into play. Who is going to be watching this article about a nobody in 5 years or 5 months or even 5 weeks except Rush fans with an axe to grind? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete, but Merge with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The event is certainly notable (it is sufficient consider how much international coverage it received, i.e. Italian coverage: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42],[43],[44], [45], [46], [47], [48] and more), but the subject seems to meet BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Satisfies WP:BIO. Incident is notable, but more importantly person is notable APART from the incident, as has been demonstrated in numerous contents. A historical note: we kept the page for Joe the Plumber following a similar debate. Countercouper (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The controversy is the notable thing, and that belongs in the article about Limbaugh. She is notable for one event only, and will not remain notable for long. Ithizar (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: notable person in the middle of a media firestorm during an election year in USA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Election year media storms are classic FARK and even MORE reason to delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like a straightforward BLP1E. As of now she has zero notability otherwise; perhaps in the future. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Redirect" or "merge" also seem fine. "Keep" seems far-fetched at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as per above --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per Cavarrone. Subject is notable within context of the event, but does not currently meet the notability standard for a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (or Merge, if ever deletion is ultimately decided), per arguments by User:Vice regent and User:Countercouper: Sandra Fluke was reasonably notable before the Limbaugh incident. -Mardus (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What nonsense. No article on a person as little known as she was ever been kept at AfD. Speciate (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Wurzelbacher. Pretty similar circumstances. Nathan^T 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just how do you measure known-ness, Speciate? Care to comment on the "keep" (and not merely "no consensus") conclusions for the very recent AfDs on Jasmin Bhasin and Ghanem Ibrahim al-Hassan? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I refer to her prior to the one event. Pull up one example of a person as little known as she was. Speciate (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your clarity, Speciate. You clearly say (some way above) that the one event was the denial of a chance to testify. Uh-huh. Yes, I agree with you: she was little known before this. But you immediately add that All else is media circus around the event. Perhaps it is, IFF you define "media circus" very broadly indeed. But Wikipedia covers media circuses. If it didn't, well, there might not be coverage of a great number of people, Limbaugh and Sam/Joe the plumber among them. Though actually the substance of what Fluke said to Pelosi et al. was covered in the press, and to call this part of a "media circus" seems a huge exaggeration. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy per JayJasper. There is a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, which clearly states that if an individual is known for a single event and likely to remain low-profile afterwards then the information should be contained in the page regarding the event. Jhfireboy Talk 01:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event only, otherwise of no interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suara Gondang (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is precisely what WP:BLP1E is intended to prevent, articles on otherwise ordinary people who land in the spotlight because of one situation. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell us what the "one event" is, Tarc, and then we can see whether/how the reliable sources for it add up. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already skimmed your exhaustive-bordering-on-pedantic replies to many, many editors above. She is known for nothing other than being slurred by a political pundit, despite your valiant efforts to squeeze notability from nothing. Tarc (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ms Fluke has not become noteworthy enough yet to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Tens of thousands of people have testified before congress and millions of people hold her views on contraception. The one and only thing that makes her unique is that she was attacked by Rush Limbaugh. That simply doesn't meet the qualification for a wikipedia article. Falcon50c 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon50c (talk • contribs) — Falcon50c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete This appears to be clearly within the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, also notability. Neither Fluke's activism nor her testimony warrant an article. Limbaugh's commentary is the cause célèbre. It would best best to place this content in a subsection of the Limbaugh article. Armandthecorsair (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would be in favour of keeping. Its not a question of notability, its the fact that she has become an iconic victim that represents the debate over women's reproductive rights. I am saying this as a member of the Feminism project on Wikipedia. To say this is about Limnaugh is missing the point, people like him target others every day. Fluke will be remembered for bringing this issue to a critical point in the US political debate, and for the efforts to silence her voice. Frankly I would find it offensive as a feminist to have her position subsumed under Limbaugh. Those who think her name will go away in 15 minutes have failed to realise just how serious this issue is, or as some commentators have pointed out, why is the debate about women's reproductive rights dominated by men? Ironically the amount of comment on this page testifies to her notability - symbolically more than instrumentally --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Notability is precisely what it (and all other articles' existence on Wikipedia) is about. See also WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response That would depend on what you mean by notability. The sections you direct to have nothing to do with this case, it is neither about crystal balls nor soapboxes. Fluke is the flashpoint of a national debate, she epitomises one side of a central controversy. It seems every single TV progam I saw last night mentioned her --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response That's how things work in a 24-hour news cycle. The "Don't tase me bro" guy was on the news a lot, too. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either I missed that or I have a short memory or both. Mildly curious, I took a look. Wikipedia (this, English-language one) turns out to have an article about it. This looks soberly done and useful, if long-winded. Indeed, French Wikipedia also has an article about it. ¶ Objection! So what if there's an article on the tasing? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ah, but the article was kept as the result of its AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Right, the incident has an article, not the guy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and merge. This should be a pretty obvious call per our usual policy. I find it disturbing that many of the support votes here seems to have given an explicit political reason for keeping this page - something about "deserves to be honored" and "protecting the victim" from being "depersonalized". This deletion has nothing to do with the politics; we already have an article about the controversy and a further article on controversies about Rush Limbaugh. That more then suffices to cover this issue; at this point, this article is nothing but an unnecessary distraction for most readers. (note that the general consensus for whether we ought to have a biography is whether the person is only notable for one incident. If this is the case, and there already exists an article covering the incident, then it makes no sense to have a separate article for the persons involved.) Jim Sukwutput 03:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said at Talk:Rush Limbaugh: The Blunt Amendment, which was attached to some highway bill, would have allowed a moral (not only religious) exception to insurance coverage for any health service (not only contraception). It was for tactical reasons, on both sides, that this was narrowed to a religious freedom issue vs a contraception issue. And for many Republicans, it was any and all mandates they opposed, not on moral grounds but because they wanted any avenue to undermine Obama's health reform. So every time you narrow this issue to something specific, you add a heap of POV. The reason I continue to feel, for now that Sandra Fluke is a good article title is that we can all agree, without bias, that Sandra Fluke's name is Sandra Fluke. Anything else you invent carries a POV. Although Blunt Amendment has a nice, neutral ring to it too.
One thing that you do when making this into a "Rush Limbaugh controversy" is make it not a Republican Party controversy, i.e. you deny that Limbaugh represents a broad slice of Republican or conservative thought. He's only speaking for, and embarrassing, himself. Maybe so, but if Wikipedia takes that position, it is taking sides, and violating NPOV, in favor of the GOP and against activists who say this controversy is not only about one radio guy and one young woman, but an attack on all women by an entire party (see comment just above yours for further elaboration). A neutral position is somewhere in between, I know not where. Maybe Blunt Amendment? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand this argument. I started to randomly search wiki articles. There is some highly un-noteworthy stuff out there. ObsCure (video game), Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta , Benders ... etc. I went to a random wiki generator to get these. I fully admit, I created this page because I searched and wondered why there wasn't a page. I also admit, I was outraged by the comments. With that said, I really really don't get the standard. It is supposed to be about "persistent" media coverage. How the heck does, ObsCure (video game) have more persistent coverage? Casprings (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to at least pick examples that have been nominated for deletion; any of those articles might in fact get deleted if you were to try. Instead look at Joe the Plumber or Edith Macefield, Levi Johnston, Jared Lee Loughner, Susan Boyle, Amanda Knox, etc etc etc. And of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay those. How is she less notable then those? I really don't understand. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see this is headed for a "no consensus", perpetuating the myth, "We don't vote, we discuss". Many of the "keeps" are clearly based on personal preference and politics rather than guidelines, and I hope that the closer will take this into consideration. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't see that many of the delete or merge !votes advance a political point of view that favors the Republican Party? The sooner this is all forgotten (or pinned only on Limbaugh and not his whole party), the better for the GOP. The reason for the lack of consensus is that the issue is in fact highly divisive. Not because half of Wikipeidans are brainwashed partisan hacks and the other half only want to delete this ginned up controversy without a second's thought for who benefits from that deletion. If only it were so simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't see that. I don't give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. This is a straightforward case of WP:BLP1E and our guidelines are clear on how to handle that. Many of the "keeps" openly state that they are in favor of keeping because of political reasons, and that is clearly unacceptable for AfD purposes. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two conditions for a BLP1E deletion. One, the news coverage is only in the context of one event. So you have to believe that the Senate testimony, and Limbaugh's insults, and her subsequent activities, were not three or more events, but only one. Then, if you buy that, you further have to believe that this law student who was an activist who had frequently written and spoken on contraception, was really only a low-profile individual who never sought the spotlight, and you're going to prognosticate with your crystal ball that she is likely to remain low profile. You really expect to see consensus that she is in all likelihood just going to go home and be forgotten? Will turn down speaking engagements? Will not do any more interviews between now and November? Won't be featured in Democratic advertisements and speeches? Asked to share the stage with candidates across the country?

I'm prepared to believe that she might go home and never be heard from again. It's possible. But likely? No. I wouldn't go that far. And one must be willing to go that far to meet BLP1E. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Dennis, I have no problem with your statement or your opinion on the matter. I do have a big problem with people saying "keep, because I'm a feminist" or "keep, rather than merge to Rush Limbaugh because I don't like him", or "keep, because we have articles on less-notable subjects". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we do not know whether or not she might in the future be heard from again, that is cause for delete until the furture sources show that she actually is something other than the focus of today's media circus. We dont "keep" on the basis that she might in the future. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite of what BLP1E says. It doesn't say, we should delete articles unless the person is likely to continue to be high profile. It says, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." If A AND B, then "avoid having an article". It's a high burden, to meet both of those two conditions, and failing to meet it, you don't delete. I'm still waiting for anybody to cite an actual source saying she is likely to be low-profile. Is a source too much to ask? Or do we just go with mere speculation? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. Subject does not to my knowledge have notability outside the incident with Limbaugh. This biographical content can be covered in brief in that page. --Pstanton (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:BLP1E. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) // Update: I've been following the article for days now; what's obvious has not changed: look at the lead: "We are only writing this article because Rush Limbaugh called her a slut. Thanks for stopping by." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are some POV issues, but the subject has received significant coverage to merit an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is reminiscent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree that this is a classic WP:BLP1E, but controversy is notable and should have an article.--В и к и T 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Merge/Redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I agree she's a classic WP:BLP1E. Youreallycan 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I came to this article from outside the US, seeking to find out a bit of background behind all the media fuss. It is a useful page - if she fades to obscurity a small section on Limbaugh's page will do, if she continues to be a public figure this article will evolve. Wikipedia is not paper, so while the controversy exist (both right here on this deletion page, and in the media), having this article is useful information (ie, the purpose of an encyclopedia). Bendav (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The policies have already been stated and I don't wish to repeat them, but I think that this is just unnecessary and could be mentioned in other articles. I'm not sure how MS. Fluke feels about it, but I feel like she's not happy to be the focus of any more attention for being called a "slut" by a lunatic. That in itself does not warrant a deletion, but as I said, the policies have already been mentioned and that is why they are in place.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable enough and it is in good state. If it is WP:RECENT, then the deletion of this article can be assessed again after few months. Abhishikt (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I came to this page because I wanted to know more about Sandra Fluke and the controversy. When I searched Sandra Fluke in Google and saw an article under Wikipedia that is where I went because I knew I would get the story and nothing but the story ... and I did. This is a very beneficial service that Wikipedia provides and is what makes Wikipedia so great. So in the future, if I was reading about Rush Limbaugh on Wikipedia, and saw the text "Sandra Fluke controversy"; why wouldn't I want to be redirected to this page and get a full understanding of the controversy and Sandra Fluke which I can then use to better understand how talk show hosts destroy their careers? (User: todennisk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC). — Todennisk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Wknight94 ^talk 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I mentioned earlier that this discussion should be suspended for a short time to see if anything more comes out of the issue. Someone brought up this particular part of the WP:BLP1E policy, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate." As the policy continues, significance is reflected in news coverage. Given the continuing coverage and extended fallout, it would appear that this policy has been satisfied. However, it may be better to simply merge the content here with that of Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, so I am not yet taking a stance. That article also has three discussions going for it, including its merger with this article and an AfD, so now is not a good time to merge. Tealwisp (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, can we remove the delete and merge banners from both Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy? We can then come back to this debate in a week or two, if that is needed.160.149.1.36 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing Sandra Fluke to John Hinckley, Jr. seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Your "continuing coverage" is what, about 72 hours? Hinckley has been reported on more than 30 years after his 1E. Wknight94 ^talk 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - John Hinckley keeps getting brought up in this discussion because he is the sole example used in the discussion at WP:BLP1E. However, that policy section does not say that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about someone simply because that person's "single event" is less "important" than the shooting of a President of the United States. It's just one example. Maybe the example used in the policy should be, say, Jared Lee Loughner instead. And maybe Frank Eugene Corder as well. One thing that jumps out from all three of those examples is that the subjects of the articles really were involved in one event -- unlike Sandra Fluke, who was (and is) involved in a continuing controversy, which comprises several "events." Neutron (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it may be a close call, I think she has surpassed the "one-event" stage. It's a well sourced article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She may become notable one day but today is not the day. She part of a border-line notable incident and has not transcended that incident.Racingstripes (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E if I ever saw one. This article really only has one section, and that is a narrative recounting her testimony. The Limbaugh controversy article already exists. Just redirect to there. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 23:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While some users have reasonable delete arguments (others are of the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT variety), I think the event is lasting long enough to be notable. The article provides necessary context for the biographical perspective on the issues. I think it is important that this article is kept. Eaghassi (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This appears to be a politically charged issue to delete. Baby Jessica is an excellent article to compare this with as far as criteria of an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.214.130 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — 99.62.214.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment (keep) Frankly I am concerned by some of the concrete thinking displayed in this and other discusions as to what should be kept. This seems to a particular problem in articles regarding women's issues. She clearly continues to attract attention and even President Obama considered her notable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep) It may be of interest that User:HotArticlesBot shows Sandra Fluke leading the Hot Article league by a big lead. That has to count for something --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, here (Feminism)? NB this is merely heat of editing. For what it's worth, this shows 8525 views on the first day (3 March) of its existence, rising uninterruptedly to 67408 views on the latest (6 March), for a total of 142500 views. But the degree to which the public is interested may of course be of little or no importance to Wikipedia. (I hope it's of not too great an importance: the articles I spend the most time improving generally have something like ten views per day.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is titled and is about a now, like it or not, public figure: Sandra Fluke. Not an "event," or controversial topic. I had no idea Mrs. Fluke went to Cornell, was an activist by trade who'd worked for multiple groups, and who had tried to testify before Congress before the episode that led to Limbaugh's comment. Limbaugh is the "event" in her biography/career, as much as she is an event in his. Wikipedia is a source of free information; censoring a page about a now public figure is obviously a step in the wrong direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LianaElizabeth (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — LianaElizabeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep Given the enormous debate from both sides of the house on the she is clearly notable both to those who think that this page should be deleted as well as those who feel it should be preserved. Besides, if the President of the United States of America thinks that she is notable enough to warrant a public phone call, who are we to doubt? Put another way, it seems clear that those who object to the existence of this page doth protest too much, methinks. Enquire (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is the very embodiment of a WP:BLP1E. At most, a two-sentence bio should be merged into the "Limbaugh/Fluke controversy" page, assuming that page survives its own AfD. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. So this article would be utterly unlike, say, that on Bill McCaffrey? -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McCaffrey played Major League Baseball, which meant he passed WP:BASE/N for notability purposes. Unless there's a Wiki notability guideline that grants notability to people insulted by radio pundits, I don't see how my vote regarding McCaffrey's page is relevant here at all. — NY-13021 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It's more delete-badgering. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, McCaffrey played one (1) match in Major League Baseball. You are of course right in saying that a guideline says that any MLB player is notable. I didn't notice the AfD at the time, but, if I had, wouldn't have !voted to delete. However, I shouldn't have thought that (i) being invited as the sole witness to a hearing (source), (ii) being picked up by a radio celeb and thereupon entering a "media circus" (as a delete-!voter reasonably called it above), (iii) being discussed thereafter without mention of the radio celeb (example, example) all amounted to a single event, let alone a single event of less (Wikipedia-variety) notability than being the player of a single MLB game. -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Arguments citing WP:BLP1E as a reason for deletion are arguing that Fluke is famous for a single event, but I think it's clear that she's spent about two weeks in the news cycle, which, in itself, is not a non-event. I would argue that as she is important for having been refused to join Issa's panel (with the Democratic walk-outs), for having spoken at a Democratic panel and then being referred to as a slut, followed by the significant mass media coverage of her wherein she has become a face to the contraceptive mandate story, makes her notable. The examples on WP:BLP1E page refer to people like the man who filmed Rodney King's beating as being not stand-alone worthy; I argue that Fluke is significantly more of an important figure than the examples listed on that page as guidelines. Yellowy 04:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crux of the WP:BLP1E guideline really is "if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I don't think anyone has any reason to believe she will be part of the news cycle again, outside of the umbrella of her testimony (or lack thereof) and its reverberations. If she does pop up again, then a separate article is completely justified. But until then, there is no need for there to be essentially two articles on her since Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy covers the same information. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic BLP1E. Hairsplitting about whether the hearings and aftermath are really one incident does not obviate the problem of a low-profile person, even if she had been involved in local activism, being scrutinized primarily because an entertainer said some nasty things about her. Lots of people have testified before congress, lots of people have been barred from testifying, lots of people have been insulted by Limbaugh. If this incident has lasting impact, and Fluke becomes a persistent public figure, we can always restore. (I will not be watching this page. If you have a response, ping me on my talk page.) Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As others have stated, Sandra Fluke was known before Limbaugh made his comments. There were several (at least national) headlines about the 'single female witness that was not allowed to testify about birth control'. Although her name was not given much at the time, that was Sandra Fluke the papers were referring to. For many people, particularly women and those involved in women's rights in the U.S., her being denied as a witness was by itself a notable event. Look up 'birth control female witness' in Google -- most of those articles would count as the first event. That would make Limbaugh (and Fluke's reaction to Limbaugh, the President's call, etc) the second event, thus WP:BLP1E should no longer be applicable. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep Sandra Fluke had gained fame before Limbaugh made his comments. She was interviewed on international radio, Democracy Now and cable television multiple times. First it was about Daryl Issa banning her from testifying and then her testimony at the Democratic forum. And that was after some small media covered the Georgetown students' press conference at the National Press Club. As an avid news consumer, I knew who Fluke was a week before Limbaugh made his comments and everything completely exploded. Not only that, but I do expect she will be in the news again in the future. As a lot of conservative media is pointing out, she's actually a long-time activist and she will likely end up commentating on MSNBC and elsewhere on these issues. Seriously, if Figwit has his own page... well, a lot more people know the name Sandra Fluke than Figwit and she will be referred to for a long time. User:shadan7— shadan7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep I do not have time to pay attention to news in detail, so I was greatly helped by this Wikipedia article. I am mature enough to filter out portions of entries that are obviously politically based.User:feran —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I'd like to ask someone to look into these many !votes from IP's and brand-new accounts; often with red-linked user pages and erased time stamps. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced article, I'm convinced by arguments above that Fluke meets our threshold for notability. Joe the Plumber comes to mind, another person who achieved notability through their interaction with a famous person. She also seems to have other accomplishments and media appearances that have added to this. Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of Bio is why we have WP:BLP1E. Mt king ^(edits) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - The event covers the one event for which she is notable in its entirety. Comparisons of this AfD to cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher are entirely different, since in this case we also have an article about the event.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question How long do these decisions normally take and how long does this normally go on for? Pure curiosity. Not sure what else needs to be said. It does seem like every day this continues the argument gets stronger for keeping the article. Casprings (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." (WP:AFD) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Funny how all votes are strong keep or strong delete. irregardless, Sandra Fluke was already notable as a women's rights activist before the Limbaugh episode. there's plenty of media coverage of her from before February 2012. LateNiteFluker (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)— LateNiteFluker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Grumpy Comment -- the fact that such a high profile person's biography is even in debate show Wikipedia is failing its mission to serve "All The World's Knowedge". I can't even dignify this process with a Keep. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 4

Delete The personal biography clearly is a matter of BLP1E. The event may or may not be "notable" in the long run, but the "person" clearly is not notable. Dor whoever closes - note well the number of "!votes" found by pepple with no other edits, and the high likelihood that outside CANVASSing (like [49], [50] etc.) has occurred off-Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with the first half of your comment, Collect, I agree with the second. Moreover, other strange things have gone on above. Search within this AfD discussion for the word "altered" (as of now, there's only one instance), and read the sentence (by me) in which it appears. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The allegedly non-notable Ms Fluke continues to be in the news every day - for what she represents. As expected, today March 8th, being International Women's Day she has become the poster girl for women's rights, and she also epitomises the problems the Republican Party is having in this year's election cycle. For that reason alone I think her name is going to continue to appear. This is way biggger than Mr Limbaugh's tirade - he merely shone a light on it.

It is interesting that a number of people think this is "clearly" a matter of WP:BLP1E. One thing that is evident is that it is far from clear. The sheer number of comments on this page, one way or another, makes this entry notable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also interesting how many apparent WP:SPAs appear here - it would be worth counting and tagging them. Many of them are written in an intolerant language reminiscent of the problematic monologue itself. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who cite article quality as the reason foe deletion - that's missing the point. That is not the criterion for keep/delete. That can and will be fixed - its the very nature of WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic example of WP:BLP1E Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and we don't need to pretend we're Wikinews. There's no evidence in this article that she passes WP:SCHOLAR; if you want to write an article about a scholar who just happens to be the same person, you'll have to do a complete rewrite, so we'd need to blow it up and start all over. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Strong Keep"" This is clear, unbiased coverage of an event that puts a fine point on the need to tone down political rhetoric in our country. It demonstrates how a news person can influence political discussion. Rather than expressing his opinion, his intention is to incite and divide. As citizens, we need to understand who is joining this divisive trend and who is standing up to defend reasoned discourse. Rcatherinecooper (talk)K. Cooper 6 March 2012 Added 14:13–14:15, 8 March 2012‎ — Rcatherinecooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. This woman is not notable! She is a lobbyist that got media attention. She is a puppet for the left and Rush used the wrong wording but his point was that she basically wants free contraception. However nothing in life is free. She was unknown before this incident. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is free, at least to you. PWNED!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your accusations are true, then she is not a low-profile person, and that means WP:BLP1E does not apply. One of the unresolved disputes between the political right and the left about Sandra Fluke is whether she is an attention-seeking agent of the Democrats, or if she is, as President Obama described her, "a private citizen". If the closing admin declares that she is a private citizen to apply BLP1E, that requires violating NPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Chillllls (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Can be turned in to a redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy if it isn't deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and I doubt it it's going to expire. Does anyone think we've heard the last of her? Await discussion of fluke (neologism), which I have no doubt will be coming next. Oh the dramah.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Under no circumstances should this be a red link. Period. Too many people are coming here to find the information on this subject. We can trumpet WP:NOTNEWS all we want, which is fine in theory, but in practice, people DO come here for up to date information on this subjects like this, and it is our duty to provide it in an encyclopedic matter. That said, the form is important. I agree with the spirit of WP:BLP1E on this, that (at least at this time), an individual article is not something we should have. A merge into an appropriate article is certainly warranted. The decision of what article to merge to, and what to merge, should be left to the editors working on the article, and not done under the Damocles' Sword of an AFD discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable, even excluding the Limbaugh controversy, based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Bwrs (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (same person that posted a Strong Keep above (also as an IP - have no Wikipedia account)). The problem with merging into an article about the Limbaugh controversy is that it ignores the events that Sandra Fluke was involved in before Limbaugh - especially her inability to be a witness at an all male panel on birth control. As said above, that event was very notable to those following women's rights in the U.S., which is not an insignificantly sized group. That was before Limbaugh said a word. Making the events Sandra Fluke has been involved in only notable for Limbaugh's reaction frankly reeks of the same bias that the women's rights groups are trying to fight against. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)— 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete Ms. Fluke is "notable" only as the target of some childish name calling by a high profile radio broadcaster. She has accomplished nothing in her career that would warrant an encyclopedia article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Same person as IP post just above) Not "notable" to whom? You, personally? As written by several others, Fluke was the subject of many news articles, especially in activist groups, before Limbaugh made any comments. This is not opinion, it is fact. A few minutes of research would show it to be true. 76.89.80.23 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)— 76.89.80.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - is there some procedural difference in weighting between strong delete and delete, or strong keep and keep? I've been participating in deletion discussions for several years and wasn't aware of the difference. Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I think it's all just opinion, a "Delete" and "Strong Delete" really don't make a difference to the closing admin. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A strong delete (or strong keep) is one made by an editor who goes to the gym at least 5 times a week. Although you don't ask, a snow delete (or snow keep) is one made by an editor who lives in a country near the North Pole.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Pee Wee Herman - that was so funny that I forgot to laugh. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP1E. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, which itself has questionable notability. This is 1BLP to the extreme. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E makes it very clear the guideline is meant for "low-profile" individuals who find themselves in the news through no intention of their own, ie "Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot." An individual who willingly testifies (or wants to) in front of the entire Washington Press Corp and in front of of US Congressional hearings, not to mention willingly appear on numerous national television shows is in no manner a "low profile" and private individual. --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So if Rush Limbaugh said the guy who lost his foot was a liberal pimp who should instead have mowed his dick off, wikipedia should write about that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in strong agreement with 76.89.80.23. The individual in question's voice was first silenced by exclusively male Members of Congress then was derided by a member of the national media who also happens to possess XY chromosome pairs. Are we seriously suggesting that her presence on Wikipedia should be subjugated and shackled to that self-same media figure's entry and that her "proper place" here is to be found underneath his? - — Phrastus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. She is notable. Politics don't come into it. Moriori (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what? A notable what? Youreallycan 05:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is an activist on an important public issue, and her activism (and the response thereto) has attracted substantial public attention. Neutron (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is ridiculous to say we would delete something due to be notable for only one event, when many people (assassins, scientists, are only notable for one hit or one invention; really is Gavrilo Princip notable for more than starting World War I?). Sometimes just one event is sufficient. Plus, it is absurd to say news is not encyclopedic material. Anything covered in widespread TV and print and online news services, i.e. in secondary sources, is worthy of coverage in the ultimate encyclopedia as well. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "ridiculous". It is Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLP1E. What you are arguing is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's well-established guidelines. Ithizar (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the opposite of what BLP1E says. The oft-cited example of an assassin, Hinckley, comes straight from the text of BLP1E. "Sometimes just one event is sufficient" is what the policy says. The extra burden of BLP1E, over and above WP:1E, is that for living people you must show that they are low-profile. Considering the volumes of reliable sources that show Sandra Fluke has "voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities", its astounding how many editors think BLP1E justifies deletion. The only explanation I have for that is that BLP1E is poorly written and widely misunderstood. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responsing when the hordes of media swarm your door asking "what do you think about a big windbag calling you a slut?" can hardly be considered "voluntarily participating". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have been telling jokes in this discussion. Is ignoring all the things that Fluke did as an activist promoting her cause an attempt at humor? Fluke wanted to testify before the Republican committee, and wanted to testify before the Democratic hearing. After the Limbaugh controversy, Fluke chose to be present at numerous media interviews. They did not beat down her door, either before or after the Rush Limbaugh attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These discussions are not votes. None-the-less, I think it is useful to note that when Keeps and Deletes are tallied, I count 60 Keeps and 54 Deletes. However, when you discard all of the votes made by accounts who are designated as having little or no edits beyond this topic, the count is 43 Keeps and 47 Deletes. I think both counts help establish that there is no real consensus being formed on this issue with the community being fairly evenly divided. However, it also seems obvious that people from outside the Wikipedia community are being directed here with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of this discussion in favor of keeping the article -- 17 such "votes" have been registered -- and I think that should be weighed when looking at the discussion as well. Ithizar (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response As you point out, this is not a strict yay-versus-nay vote, but all input is not equal: the strength of arguments is what is germane, so if (e.g.) the delete !votes are of the sort "this should be deleted because of X policy" and the keep !votes are of the sort "this article is an important emblem of my social crusade" then the latter are all irrelevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that most of the regulars, at least the names I recognize, are nearly unanimous in suggesting a merge or delete. The vast majority of the keeps are well intentioned but naive about Wikipedia policy (and the fact there's a separate article about the only reason she's in the news)... I trust the closing admin will similarly notice this. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Part of the problem is that it comes down to a subjective judgment and the policies don't give one a really objective measure, at least as written. The policy basically says, if a person is only notable by one event, then it will be deleted. Then it goes on to say, but that won’t happen if the one event is so notable that the person is notable simply because of the event. How do you judge this? Persistence of media coverage, of course.

Then the problem is on rather it is one event or multiple events. Is her denial of testimony, statement to democratic house members and then the Limbaugh controversy one event? Or is it multiple events? How do you judge? You make your own subjective judgment.

If the policy standards are this subjective, then one can’t be surprised that there is debate. If one is going to one is going to state that notability is judged by persistence of news coverage, then one needs to develop objective standards. How many sources and for how long make a person notable?

On the whole new editor thing, I created the article because I searched for it and it wasn't there. I would assume that is how many new editors get involved in wikipedia. The quality of the arguements should be taken into consideration, not rather they are new or not. Casprings (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinckley is still getting three pages of google news hits from the past 4 weeks [51] There are clearly notable one events. And then there is FARK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 9 March 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 consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of products endorsed by Jennifer Lopez

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

Delete I don't think we need a Article like this. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using what logic? — Status {^talk_contribs 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:TucsonDavid, your points (or point) are too weak to tag a page for deletion that they are almost invalid; a page which is clearly a work in process, if you bothered to take a look at the tag. I think the page should be kept, she is an entrepreneur and has endorsed multiple (hundreds) of products Arrekea 06:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is a premature tag, but this list seems like cruft of the highest order; most of the links redirect to Jennifer Lopez anyway, which says a lot. — foxj 06:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was LITERALLY just created. I didn't even get a chance to add a single thing and it was tagged, without a reason even, other than that the person thinks "we don't need an article like this". I wouldn't go pulling the cruft card here, when I've complied and gotten two complied lists to FL (Jennifer Lopez discography and Jennifer Lopez filmography). This article is to become the same. — Status {^talk_contribs 06:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Actually my reason is clearly valid and it does look like a list of cruft that is why I added the AFD tag. I'm not trying to dicourge User:Status. I may of taged it early but keep working on it you might change peoples minds. If a Admin wants to close it early and keep it I have no problem with that. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, as stated in the article: "Jennifer Lopez is... who is credited for bringing back celebrity perfume endorsements, which was deemed to be "dead" since the late 1980s." I'd say that's pretty notable, wouldn't you? She's had I don't know how many endorsement deals, and they are being complied up into a nice little list for readers to see. I can see what you mean as to how only "fans" would be interested in the subject, but the same thing could be said about discographies, and even article's about a person itself. Fancruft says: "This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion", in which, I'd say doesn't apply here. If you look at my previous work, as stated above, there is nothing fancruft-like about it - they are both featured lists. And obviously the article isn't well written or well refrenced ATM, as it was almost literally just created. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this a joke? Wasn't the page tagged as being "under construction"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly definitely was. First edit. — Status {^talk_contribs 08:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be cautious about an article like this. Looking back, we've deleted and merged things like this for other well-known people in the past. At the root of my concern: are there enough neutral, reliable sources to cite every product she's endorsed? Is there enough of a social impact or substantial research to prove her endorsements mean an increase in sales? If she ups business for each product 200 percent, I would be all for an article laying out the meaning of a JLo endorsement. But she didn't invent these products or have a notable enough connection to warrant a mention in their articles; she's just endorsed them, which is something celebrities are paid to do all the time, and which are very rarely notable by themselves. —Ed!^(talk) 08:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article was still under construction when it was nominated for deletion. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I get that, but my concern is that the page has to be going somewhere to indicate that it will be inherently notable in the future or that it can be backed up by some sources more reliable than commercials, because we've never kept an article like this, and I'm afraid even a completed list of products may run into a WP:NOONECARES argument and another AFD. —Ed!^(talk) 08:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, I think Status can create the article in a sandbox to see how it comes along. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article is to expand upon this section of her main article. Have each type of endorsement separated with a heading, with a nice little paragraph detailing the type, and below, a list in chronological order. I don't understand who's to say that the article is useless - especially when it hasn't even been finished yet. It was literally nominated for deletion less than 5 minutes after it was created. There's nothing to defend, because nothing was able to be done. If you're so against something you've never even seen the final product of just because crappy useless articles like it have been made before, then that's your prerogative. — Status {^talk_contribs 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it's not finished -- that's unimportant in my mind. The concern I have is where is this article going? Yes, I agree high-profile endorsements have a place in the article of a notable person, but a dedicated list of them isn't accomplishing anything by itself. The pages about Tiger Woods, Billy Mays and Micheal Jackson weren't deleted because they were poor, but because they failed to establish a real purpose for the list. We probably have the sources to create a List of Jennifer Lopez's favorite foods but the problem you'll run into with other users is that there isn't any real value in doing so; the interest here is very limited and it doesn't add anything of lasting value to Wikipedia from a scholarly standpoint. I would love to see a piece on her impacts on the products she endorses -- increases in sales and how she has helped guide any fashion trends as a result of them, and I'm all for the article if those kinds of additions are possible. That's the kind of social impact that will keep an article firmly out of AFD, and it will also have scholarly, third-party sources beyond ad campaigns to source the article and pass it through WP:RS. —Ed!^(talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed! you can't judge a page that was created minutes prior. When something is tagged Under Construction it implies that it is being worked on. And that topic is of high relevancy; it is to expand the section in her main article, which could very well do without that information if it was elsewhere. It is a notable page to have and a good guide. I say, again, keep. Also, Jennifer Lopez has made a huge impact in the ENDORSEMENT world. She brought back celebrity endorsement of perfume, and Britney (and everyone) followed -- that information about THAT impact is sourced and you can find that in her article, if you would like a piece. −Arrekea♥(Talk) 11:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, did you actually just compare a list of products endorsed by the woman who is deemed to have re-launched perfume endorsements among celebrities, to a list of her favorite foods? — Status {^talk_contribs 18:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. As far as sources are concerned, do we have anything more reliable that commercials to cite this list to completion? And more importantly, do we have any indication that a list of product endorsements would be of any greater encyclopedic value than a list of favorite foods? She may indeed have brought back a new trend, but if that's the only impact she's had with her endorsements, then that's worth a sentence in the main article; not a list by itself. —Ed!^(talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subsequent edits have done nothing to convince me the article should be kept. —Ed!^(talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being paid to hawk a product is not an "endorsement," and I see no reliable evidence indicating that Lopez has any role in selecting, for example, which of the manufacturer's perfumes she will participate in advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So from what I'm seeing here, mention of her endorsing things is valid, certainly, but why does it need a separate article to specifically list the products when the section in the main article already mentions the subject and appears to also note the the more notable ones specifically (which it probably should, being relevant and all)? Unfortunately that makes this list seem like it'd be redundant at best, random at worst. — Isarra (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think WP:NOTDIR applies here, or perhaps WP:NOTADVOCATE. It just doesn't seem to be encyclopedic material. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge - At the very least, the title should be changed to List of paid product endorsements and products launched by Jennifer Lopez. More seriously, since this is a short article, referenced information could be merged to the Jennifer Lopez article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Ed this article isn't going anywhere encyclopaedic.I would also think WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NNPOV apply here.These products are being advertised on the basis that they are associated with J-Lo. An article re-affirming that connection only serves to further advertise the products - the list can never be neutral because is no real commentary on the significance (both for good and bad) of this association.A single paragraph in Jennifer Lopez could cover the key points neutrally - If the list is to serve some navigational purpose then a separate argument could be made for a "Products associated with Jennifer Lopez" Category instead - it wont necessarily be accepted but it could be made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ad. Delete CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a blog, advertising space or repository for random trivia. Wholly inappropriate article doktorb _words^deeds 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I cannot see this as being anything other than a backdoor approach to avoid WP:NOTADVERT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - backdoor WP:SPAM; a list for the sake of a list. ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, do not delete. I don't see this as an advertisement - the point that she endorses a vast number of perfumes might actually decrease the ad value; in any case that's not our priority. That said, there's little excuse to present this as a big article rather than as a small paragraph, and in turn, no reason not to fold that paragraph into her biographical article with zero loss of content. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of products she endorses isn't notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A simple WP:NOT applies here. An eneclopedia is neither an advertising agency nor a platform from which to sell product like a carnival salesman. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 March 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. henrik•talk 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiayou

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

Delete and then convert into article on the town of Jiayou (加尤镇), Lingyun County, Guangxi; this page has been tagged multiple times with "Copy to Wiktionary" or similar templates, showing other editors have expressed valid concerns with regards to WP:NOTDICT. In addition, unless translation is involved, I see no evidence that the term 加油 has been widely adopted in English sources as a standalone term, unlike guanxi (关系). GotR ^Talk 06:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Unless we have some notable source indicating this word has an impact worth mentioning, I would say it fails to warrant inclusion outside of Wiktionary. —Ed!^(talk) 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Chinese language dicdef and I can't see expansion otherwise. No sources demonstrating notability as an English language term. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 14 March 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. v/r - T P 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quacker (sound)

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

Massive chunk of original research with the odd citation to things that can not really be said to be reliable sources. Not salvageable (I can't find anything that hints as coverage of a reliable source. FWIW the effect is almost certainly what western powers classify as the far less mysterious bioduck but that is also original research. ©Geni 04:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article promises that it has reliable sources (government reports and maybe a few academic papers mentioned on the talk page) but we need to actually see them used. Normally I would favor seeking out someone who has access to the sources where available, but these sorts of tall tales easily get blown out of proportion online by spook websites, and I can't find any reliable sources about them online myself. I'd like to believe there are reliable sources somewhere, but without seeing them I can't favor keeping the page. —Ed!^(talk) 08:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree that it can't be salvaged. Admittedly ufology websites aren't very reliable, but there does seem to be a book and some newspaper articles. I think it's worth looking into by someone who knows Russian. Google Translate can only get me so far. And the bioduck phenomenon has a couple of reliable mentions, so perhaps they could become the meat of the article with the quackers as an aside? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of something called "Ghosts from the ocean floor" is at best zero and I don't have much in the way of of confidence in Komsomolskaya Pravda. You can't link bioduck with quackers because no one outside of wikipedia has done so so thats original research.©Geni 15:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.178.234 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC) keep just look for sources, don't delete... this is whats wrong with wikipedia's community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.33.227 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Nothing here passes the test of IRS. A reasonable search finds nothing useable. If a well documented phenomenon "bioduck" isn't available as a redirect target, then delete. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 14 March 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. v/r - T P 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Witch Series (Kogado Studio)

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

All articles related to this game series have been deleted before (see this past deletion discussion) with little to no controversy, and the editor responsible for writing them (Patriciatajiya) has now rewritten some of them, without addressing any of the problems listed in the original AfD discussion. As these same justifications for deletion remain, I suggest prompt removal of them all, as the editor, being the same person, has had ample time to address these concerns. For example, notability has still not been established whatsoever, and there are virtually no citations orexternal links except for the games' own official web pages. G-Flex (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The associated articles I am also nominating, for the reasons above and in the original AfD mentioned, are those also linked in this article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. G-Flex (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I can't find (at least English and I'm unable to interpret Japanese) multiple reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG for any of the four games to establish notability. Consequently, the series topic is also not notable. I'm hoping someone speaking Japanese can search Japanese sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:21, 24 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. Thank you. Also, author appears to be doing public relations for several places without revealing his or her relationship. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are more reliable sources. —Ed!^(talk) 08:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All unsourced, couldn't find sources. Not much is lost with deletion anyways, much of the articles are just lists of characters/voice actors anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 5 March 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. henrik•talk 19:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Execucom

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

No indication whatsoever of the importance or significance of the subject. The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:24, 25 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7: the short-lived now defunct company with some coverage in reliable sources only as brief mention about acquisition. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a article on a non-notable topic. Cloudz 679 18:21, 13 March 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. v/r - T P 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Summer University on Logistics Mobility and Sustainability

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

Non-notable course. No refs in article, searches find only affiliated sites; no third-party coverage which might help meet the GNG. PROD removed without comment. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 February 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 11:11, 25 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always delete individual academic programs. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent WP:PROMOTION by page creator and another major contributor. No sufficient RS to justify inclusion. Failing delete, redirect to Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 14 March 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 Heart failure#Classification. v/r - T P 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class IV heart defect

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

This article attempts to discuss the nature of the most advanced stage in the New York Heart Association Functional Classification of heart failure. The term "heart defect" is probably not valid here. Would otherwise have pushed for redirect. Delete instead. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 February 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 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this attempts to discuss NYHA IV as JFW suggests, most of the examples ("hole in the heart" etc.) are inappropriate. On the other hand, neither ICD-10 nor any other notable source seem to classify congenital heart defects under such a scheme. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:10, 26 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a topic. There are a variety of entities that can be described as heart defect, and there are a variety of classification systems that have a class IV, but there is no generalized intersection to comprise an article.Novangelis (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heart failure#Classification. Reflects part of this classification which is discussed at the target. Clearly not a medically accurate term but that is not a factor in redirects. Redirects are simply a search aid and since this is a used search term seems a useful solution. TerriersFan (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heart failure#Classification. Redirects are cheap, and as User:TerriersFan points out, valid search term, if not a correct medical terminology. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 14 March 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 Quicksilver (software). v/r - T P 01:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacktree Software

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; references are to "lifehacker" interviews and other self published sources. Quicksilver (software), the chief product, appears to be advertising and of doubtful notability as well; that page is referenced to blogs and self published sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 16 February 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, —SW— ^communicate 16:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Quicksilver (software), as its only notable creation. Steven Walling • talk 05:26, 27 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:20, 3 March 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 G5 by MuZemike. Page was created by a sock of WölffReik (talk · contribs) (NAC) Mt king ^(edits) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Glory events

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

List of non-notable events is non-notable (fails WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG). Precendent includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in kickboxing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Showtime - Original among others. Also appears to be an attempt at circumventing those previous AfDs by taking the contents of individually deleted articles and cramming them into a really long article. TreyGeek (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, assuming the articles are deleted, there are a number of 'articles' which are simple redirects to these lists. I'm not sure if they would immediately be deleted with this AfD or not (I imagine they would be eligible for speedy deletion if the main 'List of' articles are deleted). If those redirect articles are not deleted, could the list of them be placed into my sandbox or someplace so that they can be dealt with later? --TreyGeek (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Take you pick form WP:ROUTINE, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary article listed here has been deleted as a result of an ANI report. (I'll attempt to keep the wikilink updated if/when it goes to the archives, but no garuntees) --TreyGeek (talk) 08:43, 3 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahwan CyberTek

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

Non-notable company. Extensive editing by COI editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, because this kind of text should be deleted on sight: ....in the business of providing software products and services to the global market. As a CMMi Level-5 organization, BCT employs 1500+ professionals with capabilities in engineering and product development, middleware and integration solutions, business process management, business intelligence, business process outsourcing and infrastructure management solutions. At any rate, Google News finds petty trade awards and press releases. So tagging. Also note one prior speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The initial revision was not 'unambiguous advert'. The promotional content was added later. See also G-News archives, they offer some interesting coverage. I've removed the speedy tag and reverted to a less promotional version. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are fully sufficient to show notability , They include article from the major English -language Indian newspapers , articles that are substantially about the subject. (The ones just mentioned would be in addition to that, but the article can stand even without them. It's time people actually looked at the article history before nominating, as they're supposed to, instead of judging by the state the article happens to be in. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 2 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G11 and WP:B2B. The company can't be notable if it produced no notable products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources: The Hindu, The Economic Times, The Financial Express, and likely others. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI/POV issues seem to be cleared up, and there certainly is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:53, 8 March 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 Varvara_P._Mey. v/r - T P 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet of Classical Dance: 12th to 19th Century

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. The author's article is up for deletion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varvara P. Mey. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 February 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, B music ian 03:34, 15 February 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, BusterD (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I can't find evidence that the work is notable under our rules, nor can I find adequate sourcing to document any such notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a horrible idea to redirect this article to Varvara P. Mey as one of the Co-authors (and the other being a redlink). While the book might not itself be notable, the title could serve as a useful search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:50, 1 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it exists, it was translated, it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 12 March 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 - despite three relistings this article has not gained any support to be kept and I am persuaded by Dennis Brown's arguments that none of the sources are about the subject studio nor deal with it in any depth. TerriersFan (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Studios

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

Not notable. Only primary sources or passing mentions. Saying "was recorded at Chapel Studios" is not significant coverage. Spam. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. It's not spam, though. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference to a Sound on Sound interview with the producer of the Arctic Monkeys and The Editors there, where more is said about the studio. AllyD (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, but that is the problem I'm finding. I see mentions of the studio, but no articles that pass WP:SIGCOV, even being generous in the definition. Lots of albums or articles on albums will mention "was recorded at $x studios" but even a million mentions doesn't establish notability if the article isn't actually ABOUT the studio itself. Realistically, the vast majority of studios are NOT going to be notable, just as the vast majority of restaurants aren't going to be. They are just businesses. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 18 February 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, Courcelles 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:10, 3 March 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. v/r - T P 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citylight.net

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

Non-notable? Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 17:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 February 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, B music ian 02:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per coverage in trustworthy governmental sources:

"Telemetrica Ltd". Investment and Development Agency of Latvia. Retrieved February 24, 2012.
"Export and Innovation Award 2010: Pride of the Latvian Economy". Investment and Development Agency of Latvia. 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, the company is called Telemetrica and the product is Citylight Software. Secondly, the product was only nominated for a prize, not given one, even though they got recognition. What is missing are reliable third-party sources, preferably magazines or journals, with an article on the product and its notability. Lettonica (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure that's the name of the company. However, the reliable, tertiary sources in my !vote above cover the article's topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 7 March 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, B music ian 04:08, 3 March 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. v/r - T P 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrasoft

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 17 February 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 11:13, 25 February 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, B music ian 04:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article on a non-notable topic. Cloudz 679 18:20, 13 March 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. v/r - T P 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphor Computer Systems

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7: another very notable company, developing "ideal product for brand managers" [sic]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:21, 18 February 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, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does indicate why this company was important - it was one of the first commercial platform developers to include wireless peripherals including a wireless keyboard, and was an early adopter of Graphical User Interface. Dialectric (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a referenced article on a potentially historically important computer workstation company tied to Xerox/Parc and IBM. Closed in 1994, so no potential for spam here. Multiple NYTimes hits: http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/metaphor-computer-systems, among others. Dialectric (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times coverage is extremely limited. Their brief history can be summed up as; they were founded in 1982, sued their parent company in 1989, entered in a "partnership" with IMB in 1990, and got bought out by IBM in 1991. In the 22 sources you linked, the majority didn't even mention this organization. Of the eight or so sources that actually mentioned the organizations, there are only four non-trivial mentions in the news coverage. There is a three sentence news article mentioning that the company was suing their parent organization. The other three non-trivial sources mention that the organization was entering into a partnership and that the fact that it was being bought out by IBM. Because both Xerox and and IBM are well known organizations, it is to be expected that a smaller organization receives coverage for actions that affect the larger organizations. This organization didn't receive enough coverage to meet the guidelines. At best, the information could be merged into IBM and/or Xerox. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes was just a quick test to show the level of coverage likely met the notability threshold with some digging. I have added additional non-trivial coverage cites to the article. Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company can't be notable for being tied to Xerox/Parc and IBM. The coverage in NYTimes is exactly of a kind that is to be avoided (see WP:NCORP). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on seven non-trivial news stories (helpfully counted by Alpha_Quadrant) in The New York Times alone. Meets my standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Steve 08:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a total of about seven mentions in the New York Times. Three of the seven are discussing the founder, and the news sources list his achievements. Among them, this company is listed. There is one source mention that Xerox is being sued by this company. The only reason there is even an article is because a notable company is being sued by one of it's subsidiaries. It is just a brief three sentence article mentioning that the suit was taking place. The other three sources are primarily about IBM, not this company. One of the sources mentions in one sentence that this company entered in a partnership with IMB. The other two sources mention that IBM was acquiring this company. Again, the coverage is due to the fact that a notable organization is being affected by another organization. There is indeed a large amount of coverage covering this merger, as is common with company mergers. However, are they notable outside of the company merger? Presently, it appears that the company doesn't, nor does it warrant a separate article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Dallas Morning News, San Jose Mercury News, and The Chicago Tribune, among numerous others. I'm pretty sure they got to the bar. The Steve 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is not a source on topic at all, the others are behind the WP:PAYWALL, but if they are similar to NYTimes, they are still useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by useless. From WP:N "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." No, its not substantial, but it is coverage, it is NOT about the merger, and it is from a reliable source. What more is it exactly that you want?... The Steve 10:49, 9 March 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, B music ian 04:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with Dialectric that this article should be kept because of the historical importance of Metaphor as a spin-off of the Xerox Star. All other GUI desktop operating systems were imitative, while Metaphor was a very direct architectural descendant. Even the internal code design was similar. When you consider that individual songs and cartoons get dedicated articles, I don't see how the only direct descendant of the groundbreaking Star can be considered not notable enough for Wikipedia. The problem isn't notability, it is that the article as written fails the "no original research" guideline, and lacks citations. But there is probably print coverage that could be found in business tech publications. Suggest seeking someone who can track down those citations. (By way of background, I worked on the Star at SDD under Dave Liddle, and knew many of the Metaphor founders.) Teri Pettit (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Teri Pettit that this article is worth keeping. Metaphor Capsule was the subject of at least one academic paper, combining Star's iconic interface with a unique visual programming style. The hardware was a design award-winner for the stow-able components. I agree the article could be better sourced. But in a world devoting many pages to 1960's TV shows, surely an advancement in computing technology deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. Disclosure: I worked at Xerox before moving to work for David Liddle at Metaphor in 1988.

comment From Google Books (link at top): Articles in InfoWorld: [52],[53],[54] Computerworld: [55], [56] and PC Magazine: [57]. I have added one cite to the article The Steve 05:46, 10 March 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. v/r - T P 01:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhr Software, Inc.

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:21, 25 February 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, B music ian 04:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable subject. Cloudz 679 18:19, 13 March 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. v/r - T P 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongrass (music)

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

Non-notable music group. I could not find any sources to improve notability. Tinton5 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find independent secondary sources. WP:ORIGINAL.--Ben Ben (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biographical article on Allmusic by a reputable critic (Steve Huey) swings me round to a presumption of notability on this one. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I am relisting this debate for one more week of discussion because of the fact that a biographical article on Allmusic by a reputable critic exists, per User:AllyD. This may be sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a second research because of Ally. (Good job, thanks.) Besides this one biography there is hardly anything to find that could stand WP:MUSICBIO: subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent. There is a bad signal to noise ratio when it comes to research this sort of DJ electronic music. On the other hand this article has been created by a new author who did a one weekend job to write articles about musicians that are all on the same music label.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:56, 4 March 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. v/r - T P 01:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connacht Under-21 Hurling Championship

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

This amateur, under-21-years-of-age, province-level, hurling championship lacks requisite multiple independent substantial RS coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feeder competition of a national (in fact international) competition. Meagre sourced, but the mentioned sources are reliable and independent and not involved in organizing the Championship in question. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. GAAinfo.com is certainly not independent. It is comprised of a group of Irish Gaelic footballers and a hurler. Nor is it an RS. And the pdf is not an RS either, and there is no indication that it is independent.

And WP:GNG requires significant coverage. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. We simply don't have significant coverage here.

Also, the significant coverage has to appear in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. These should be secondary sources. We don't have any RSs here.

And "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the GAA. Works produced by the GAA, or those with a strong connection to it, do not meet our needs. We also have an independence problem here.

Finally, this is merely a purely amateur, 21-year-olds, province-level competition. Those are not presumed notable. Even the national-level amateur 21-year-old competition might not be notable, but this one, junior to that, is certainly not in the absence of substantial independent RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the tiniest clue about the dealings of the GAA, you should have known that the GAA is split in 4 provinces who act independently from each other. So Kilkenny, part of Munster GAA, has nothing to do with Connacht GAA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it this way: go on with destroying the efforts of many people. I'm sick of your witch hunt and I sacrifice this article to your destructive needs. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 18 February 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, BusterD (talk) 21:24, 25 February 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, B music ian 03:56, 3 March 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. There is much in this discussion that is irrelevant and was entirely discounted. Taking what was left and weighing the relative strength of the arguments, giving more weight of course to arguments that have a sound basis in WP policy, consensus favors deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Watan

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

I am unable to find sources which say this is "a national personification" or a "term of endearment for Pakistan" All I can find is that it simply means Pak Homeland. I can find no sources which discuss the term in detail and as such it fails WP:NEO Perhaps it would be better off on Wiktionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination by a user on an article contributed by someone with who he has an interaction ban. This is a form of gaming the system, so you would be well advised to stay away from nominating (or heck, even editing) such articles. Talking about the article itself, the sources are there right in front of you, and so are some of its usages suggesting how it is a notable term. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep usage is well cited. Nomination is also a violation of interaction ban and reported at ANI per procedure (will not comment further so as not to violate from myside, can be followed up at ANI). I think ban violations should be out right reverted? --lTopGunl (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far the article is concerned, synonyms of this term are even cited in the national anthem of Pakistan. There's no doubt on the notability of the term and the mentioned synonyms. It is not remotely a WP:NEO. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close Bad faith nomination by an editor with an interaction ban. If the article really needs AfDed, let an uninvolved administrator nominate it for deletion. The major participants in this AfD have a clear interaction ban from the community, both were notified prior to the nomination of this AfD.[58][59] Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave notice on the talk page ten days before nominating this for AFD, how exactly is that bad faith? It would appear to me the bad faith is on those claiming it. Mar4d, the only source in the article is the one I added, the term means Pak Homeland, that is all I can find by way of coverage. All the other sources are to the list in the article, indicating usage of the term, but not giving the coverage required by WP:NEODarkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of the procedural sideshow above, this seems clearly to be a WP:NEO situation and there has been no resolution of the proposer's concerns despite those being raised some time prior to the nomination. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My opinion is based solely on the lack of references from reliable sources about the widespread usage of this term. I didn't find the notability of the term or concept to be backed by any dependable sources. I'd urge Topgun and Mar4d to back their "widely cited" claim with some good references. It seems that the use of the phrase in some songs is cited as reference here. However, that alone does not make the phrase notable ... there are many phrases that are similarly used in many songs. --Ragib (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

67 google Book results, 1,450,000 google search results - just an insight. A WP:NEO does not have that many search results. As for RS, I'll start with the mentions in Pakistan's national anthem, can verified here. These books use it in the given context [60] [61] [62]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are misinterpreting the Google results. In fact, in the second of your two examples, you appear to have actually mis-stated the search term. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What statement is misleading? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading? I said misinterpreting/mis-stating. It may be unintentional. Your searches are catching mirrored content etc and in the case of the general GHits search the phrase was not even constrained, so it picks up every reference to "pak", every reference to "watan" and every reference to "pak watan". What, for example has "pak choi" got to do with the subject of this article? People who have not commented here about the article have nonetheless done so elsewhere, for example this. I am not following every twist and turn of what is becoming a divisive and often rather silly stand-off across a variety of articles but so far all I am seeing - and it shows again in this AfD - is a good, experienced contributor suddenly having some sort of Damascene moment. I cannot understand your position and obviously I apologise for that, but I've tried. I have also tried trawling for Wikipedia articles on various phrases of the UK national anthem using the WP search box and the number seems to be extremely small. Yes, WP:OSE etc, but if your primary argument is that the Pak Watan phrase is in the national anthem and therefore is notable then, well, have we suddenly turned into a lyrics website? Try the same for, say, Home of the Brave, which returns a perfectly reasonable disambig page. Is this the way forward here? Create separate articles for the various uses of "Pak Watan" and then a disambig page for them? I am seeing a lot of uses of the phrase but not a commonality of purpose, which is what this article appears to imply. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... I know how to perform google searches, I left the trival on common sense... try this [63], still 161,000 results even when we search for "Pak Watan". Now these results can still include 100s of mirrors and websites named after this term but that is not the point of the search... I was obviously not giving RS when I pointed out the search, it implied an insight. When a search term has that much results (even for a country with not that much coverage on the internet), it is a common term. About the national anthem, no we're not a lyrics website, but that is a notable enough citation for a name given to a country. In my opinion that itself can be counted as a reliable source for notability (unless you consider a national anthem to be not notable or reliable). And then its not about taking all phrases of the national anthem and creating wikipedia pages on them, this one is a special one with different synonyms cited in the national anthem, songs, poetry etc. It is a very commonly used term when referring to Pakistan. I don't see any reason why this should be opposed. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sitush and WP:NEO. Also would encourage the admin closing this AfD to disregard TopGun's vote which is clearly cast in violation of his interaction Ban with the nominator.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban doesn't mean I can not give my opinion in a discussion without interacting either, you can stick to your own comment. This nomination in the first place is being regarded as a ban violation above. As for WP:NEO, it is just the opposite of that per citations above. Neologisms are new terms, this is evidently not given that it is in the national anthem as cited in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. you dont WP:OWN this article. just because you have worked on this article does not mean any other editor cant nominate the article for AfD provided there are good faith reasons to believe that article merits deletion. obviously more than one editor concurs with Darkness Shines here. You however are forbidden from responding to a nomination by DS per requirements of the interaction Ban. an equally ridiculous article would be on the term Mera Bharat Mahan which has about 202K results on google.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this at ANI, my response here is not a violation. So stop trying to get my views discounted. The nomination was also recognized as a violation at ANI [64]. I've nothing else to say to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and that big WP:TROUT was meant for somebody else ? Anyway you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine based on our understanding of wikipedia policies. I am sure the closing admin will show good judgement.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 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, B music ian 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of interaction bans or the motivation of the nominator, this strikes me as a dictionary definition blended with trivia factoids. Not an encyclopedic topic, regardless of how common the term may be. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AS per Carrite and Sitush and following wp:NEO --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term in Pakistan. Common knowledge and millions of sources. --202.75.53.200 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)— 202.75.53.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Is also using a confirmed proxy [65] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A term which is commonly used should be included in an encyclopedia. Thousands of people refer to this term. Many of the articles are also present regarding different countries terms that should also be deleted if the users nominating it for deletion have seen them. As an example how do you justify this :Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon. It's just a song. I really don't see any point of deletion of the article. It might be called as a stub but deleting it is a complete nonsense action. The term WP:NEO Neologisms as User:Darkness Shines is referring to is totally out of context. User:TopGun has stated valid reasons and appropriate references above which are enough to prove the term to be notable.--Inlandmamba (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A song can be notable, a term belongs in a dictionary, and this is not Wiktionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather fed up of people saying "keep" Notable term. Fuck is a notable term, look at the article. It goes into detail, is fully sourced and the sources discuss the term in-depth. Were are the sources for this term? I found but one which says it means "pak homeland" that is it. There are no sources which say it is a term of endearment, there are no sources which say it is a "national personification" There are no sources which discuss the term in depth, a usage in a song does not count as any sort of significant coverage. Were all these sources the keep voters keep mentioning? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been further improvements to the article as well and WP:HEY should be brought in question though the notability was established regardless. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is very much notable and do commonly exists I don't see WP:NEO applicable here. The less coverage of this term is because it is an Urdu language word. One can easily find out by googling that land of pure and pure homeland appears more often than Pak Watan. --SMS ^Talk 17:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a word or a phrase, in English or Urdu, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and without reliable sources that discuss the term we are left with what amount to passing mentions of the thing. Mere existence does not make something encyclopedic. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do discuss Pure homeland and Pakistan which are same as Pak Watan. --SMS ^Talk 11:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a dicdef. No one is arguing that it isn't a real word or that it doesn't have a definition, but defining words is for dictionaries, not encyclopedias.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring all the arguments about interaction bans, bad faith, etc, the article only has a definition of the word plus examples of its uses in song lyrics - and that looks like a textbook WP:DICDEF to me. If there are sources out there that refer to it in more than a dicdef way, I'm not seeing them - but if anyone can find any and expand the article with what they say, I'll be happy to change my mind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources for the term, combined with the fact that is it notable. September88 (talk) 16:45, 14 March 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. v/r - T P 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Weiler

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

Page appears to be blatant self-promotion - the links do not verify the subject's independent notability beyond work with his clients.TheNate (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 20 February 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, Courcelles 00:56, 25 February 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) 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is such a blatantly obvious attempt at promotion that I'm surprised that nobody has tried to speedy it. I went through the sources in the article and none of them are usable. The vast majority of them are press releases by Weiler that only mention his name or contact pages, with the rest being articles that either don't mention him at all or are just the briefest of briefest mentions. A search for Weiler brings up nothing that would show that he has any notability. He might have some brushes with notable people, but notability is not inherited or given to Weiler through this association.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. v/r - T P 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Littlewood

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

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, all sources are primary. - blake- 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 February 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) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources to show that Littlewood is notable outside of YouTube and his student radio award isn't considered to be a big enough award to where it'd give him absolute notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. v/r - T P 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Kneski

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

Non-notable academic and former gallery owner. Fails WP:PROF (essentially no mentions in Google Scholar) and WP:CREATIVE. Coverage in independent sources (all from the early 1990s, and none immediately verifiable) appears limited to the gallery and its exhibits, not in-depth biographical information about the subject himself. Hqb (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 February 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) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's possible he has genuine press coverage, but a lot of the citations look irrelevant, very weak, or to self-published sources. Some references appear almost intentionally deceptive. I think we have to require a further demonstration of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 7 March 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. v/r - T P 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Bamigboye

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

A former college track and field athlete. Fails WP:NTRACK. I'm unable to find any references beyond normal reporting a track events and her college newspaper. Prod was contested with, "Our youth-athletes in Nashville TN truly look up to this young lady as a role model. I have used her story as well as this wiki many times with my youth athletes. She is inspiration for our athletic community." Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not had notable performances at senior national level or appeared internationally. Has typically ranked outside of top 20 nationally in her specialist event. Only moderate achievements at younger levels. SFB 22:42, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" This is an unfortunate example of the bias nature of Athletics. As a NCAA Division I athlete she consistently stayed within a ranking of 6th through 15th for her entire collegiate career. In addition, as a collegiate athlete, she was the youngest qualifier in her event of the Heptathlon at the 2008 Olympic trials. If this was a draft pick who easily stayed within a "Top 15" ranking of NCAA Division I Basketball players or a "first round" draft pick for NFL Football, the inclusion of a wiki page would not be debated. How do we further women's athletics or less popular sports with such steep expectations when celebrating their success? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNRunner01 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — TNRunner01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. It is specifically NOT the intent of Wikipedia to "further women's athletics" or for that matter, to "further" anything else. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:17, 4 March 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) 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SFB. I'm inclined to think that if there really was anything to the role-model claim, there'd be plenty of reliable sources saying so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 3 March 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. v/r - T P 01:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Computers

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:20, 25 February 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) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Products have wide coverage in old Atari media, Atari fansites, etc, but a lot of this isn't WP:RS and the printed material isn't easily available. As a company which ceased business about 20 years ago and shares its name with a lot of other businesses, there's not going to be easily available info, but it may still be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 7 March 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 David Yonggi Cho. v/r - T P 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Dimension (philosophical book)

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

Non-notable book. The links are to a blog and booksellers. No indication in the article of its significance. A search turns up nothing like a reliable source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search gives a lot of hits for "The Fourth Dimension" Yonggi Cho, but I have to agree with nominator, most of it are blogs or religious websites of questionable reliability. On the other hand, David Yonggi Cho is a notable person and his "belief in the fourth dimension" seems to be a notable concept. It is also clear that he authored the book. I would suggest redirecting the title to the main article about him (the article mentions the book). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 February 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) 01:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect I agree with the above; there's very little content on the page and it could easily be redirected to David Yonggi Cho who has an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:30, 7 March 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 Doctor Who merchandise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Monster Invasion

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

Non-notable magazine. Tinton5 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 February 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) 01:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doctor Who merchandise - the magazine is not notable in itself, but can have a section in the merchandise article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 11 March 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. v/r - T P 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmette Institute

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

There are no independent reliable sources indicating why the subject of the article is important. A Google search provides only links that are affiliated with the organization Jeff3000 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may be, but the existence of the school is WP:V verifiable, and within the context of Baha'i I'd say that it has prominence. Since there are several possible merge targets, this does not appear to be a candidate for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are they any reliable sourcesthat this school has prominence in the Baha'i Faith, and assert it's notability (note that self-published sources cannot define notability)? -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE prominent material does not require WP:N notability. And WP:V verifiable material can be self-published, it is stand alone articles that normally require notability. In the article, I saw three other US Baha'i schools, and the main article on Baha'i, each of which is a candidate. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is about the amount of weight different views get on a single article, and is nothing about if a subject is notable in it's own right. WP:DEL-REASON states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" are subject to deletion, and notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All of the sources that speak about this school are not independent of subject, and so it cannot claim notability. That the other schools have articles is not a valid argument that this school should remain; You can nominate those articles for deletion, and I would support that. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion policy (which includes WP:DEL-REASON) says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The sentence specifically applies to non-wp:notable topics, and since so far there is no explanation as to why this article cannot be improved with regular editing, which includes merges, there is no case being made here for having an AfD discussion, and we are in WP:SK#1 territory. WP:DUE says, "An article should...strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." In the case of tertiary religious institutions, is there any doubt that such schools are significant to the religion? Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm claiming that the page cannot be improved because there are no reliable sources independent of the subject, and you have not provided for any proof otherwise, except that saying it can. Just saying so, is not proof. Do you have any source that states this school is significant to the religion; as part of the religion I can tell you most Baha'is don't know about it, but that I am not a reliable source, and neither are you, so you need to bring in reliable sources independent of the subject, and as of now, there are none. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 February 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) 01:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally religious training institutions of a religious organisation are notable, but I'm struggling to find anything about Wilmette. This article (citing Wilmette's own website as a source) says "The Wilmette Institute was established in 1995 and is an agency of the Baha'i faith in the United States. The institute is dedicated to offering courses on Baha'i topics, both in its classrooms in Illinois and through distance learning; it is currently offering a dozen distance-learning courses per year with an average of 350 students from the United States and about 40 countries." That seems to be it, which isn't enough for WP:N. Apparently, this institution doesn't offer any form of degree (not even an unaccredited one), which could explain the lack of notability. Also, the website suggests it is purely an online institution, without a campus. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an accredited university.[66] Just calling something an institution of learning doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. There's lots of companies offering online or by-mail learning that aren't notable. I could offer a correspondence class, put up a website, write some course material, but you need more than that to satisfy WP guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only argument against WP:ATD merge due to prominence of the material has been that "most Baha'is don't know about it". So if most people don't know that the Fatimids overthrew the Aghlabid dynasty in North Africa in the year 909, we should remove this material from the 909 article? Or is it a purpose of an encyclopedia, to offer information about which readers don't know? The argument is further refuted on Talk:Wilmette Institute, where an editor says, "The Wilmette Institute is important within it's category of a Baha'i Institution." Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but you are completely misrepresenting the comments above for deletion. You can find reliable third party sources for the overthrow of the Aghlabid dynasty, but there are no reliable sources regarding the subject of the article. I've asked you multiple times to find them, but you haven't. Furthermore, you are misrepresenting my statement about Baha'is not knowing about the subject of the article. I didn't use that as an argument for deletion, but instead noted that it is *not* a valid argument and correspondingly just stating the subject of the article is notable does not make it so; I stated instead that you'll have to find reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have WP:RS reliable sources, the nom has not denied that the sources in the article are WP:RS reliable, the nom's point is that because they are not independent of the topic they don't help to establish wp:notability. We are left with there being no argument in this AfD against merger. Unscintillating (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not true. As I stated above WP:DEL-REASON states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" are subject to deletion, and notability requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's very clear. Reliable sources notes that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." So right away, self-published sources that we have are less reliable, and can actually be only used in articles about themselves. But later on, the guideline goes on to say that they can only be used in an article about themselves when "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", and that is clearly the case here. So even the self-published sources are not considered reliable here. So not only are there no third party reliable sources, the self-published sources are not considered reliable in this case, and there is no argument for notability, and thus it meets the criteria for deletion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any basis for the claim that primary sources "can...be only used in articles about themselves". I think that primary sources can be used anywhere as appropriate. For examples using bahai.org, see Religious perspectives on Jesus, Religion in Liberia, Bible, Krishna, Israel, and Senegal. Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the claim that the "sources are not considered reliable" and find the claim to be groundless. One of the three sources in the article is bahai.org. bahai.org is "The international website of the Baha'is of the world." For example, bahai.org is used as a reliable reference in Bahá'í Faith by country. The website is frequently used as a reliable reference at Wikipedia, a Google search on ["bahai.org" site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 468 unique pages. Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not true again. Self-published sources can be used in articles about themselves in articles when "the article is not based primarily on such sources." That's true of the Bahá'í Faith by country because there are many other third-party reliable sources. But it's not true here because there are no third-party reliable sources to define notability. Please see WP:SPS. Also that other articles have problems does not mean that the policies should be not followed on this page, so the Religious perspectuves on Jesus page should be fixed, rather than be an argument here. Also note Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that www.bahai.org is self-published? And that it is a reliable source for Bahá'í Faith by country? Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as that. It really depends on what article the sources is being used for, and what statement the reference is being used to source; sometimes it would be fine and it would be a reliable source, and other times it wouldn't be applicable for it to be used. WP:SPS covers those cases. Furthermore, third-party reliable sources that define the notability of the subject allow bahai.org to be used in some cases. However, that is mostly irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about the Wilmette Institute, and not the Baha'i Faith by country or the Baha'i Faith, both which have tons of third-party independent reliable sources that define their notability, and then allow some self-published sources to be used. For the Wilmette Institute I have asked multiple times for references independent of the subject, but none have been found. Are you saying that if I create a website called "Jeff's Baha'i school", make a blog, some Youtube videos, then I can create a Wikipedia article about it. Clearly WP:SPS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DEL-REASON don't allow that, and the Wilmette Institute is no different. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) notes "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Note the words significant, independent and secondary, as well as incidental. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You had me at "no reliable sources" Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:54, 13 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jisoo (Singer)

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

Very little content with no references GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 02:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- ko.wikipedia article [67] has existed more than a year; top 6 contestant on Super Star K2; new cast member of a Korean TV drama, a list of television appearances and radio features. Unable to support with RS. Dru of Id (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed CSD because artist may be notable. At worst, this would only end in a redirect to Dream High Season 2.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This search may be a helpful starting point for sources. Goodvac (talk) 05:06, 19 February 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, BusterD (talk) 21:27, 25 February 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) 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes second point of WP:MUSICBIO, has charted on South Korea's national music chart. — ξ ^xplicit 06:22, 12 March 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. Not much discussion here, but I can't say there is consensus either way. per WP:BIODEL, no consensus on BLP's where the subject requested deletion end in deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Akers

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. This was deleted in 2010 per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Akers. It has been re-created, but the subject disputes the accuracy of the material and requests deletion. St Anselm (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Akers' request. Since there's really not any sources out there about Akers and he's very politely requested that the page be deleted, I say that we fill his request. He does seem to have a following, but it's not at such a level that keeping it would be an absolute must.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 February 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, BusterD (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is an interesting figure in animal liberation and theological circles, and I think he could be the subject of a good article. However, a quick search doesn't throw up much material in mainstream sources, and most of the article content is unsourced. Do we normally delete pages just because the subject wants it? As a writer he has established himself as a public figure, and he's widely covered in fringe literature, so I think it's legitimate to describe him and his ideas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems notable per WP:CREATIVE: a search on Google Books shows many citations of his work. He is cited in both theological discussions and discussions of vegetarianism. Examples of books citing him: Gregory E. Pence The ethics of food: a reader for the twenty-first century; Deane W. Curtin, Lisa Maree Heldke, Cooking, eating, thinking: transformative philosophies of food; ; Donna Maurer, Jeffery Sobal Eating agendas: food and nutrition as social problems; Will Tuttle, The World Peace Diet; Jeffrey J. Bütz, James Tabor The Secret Legacy of Jesus. Self-help book Carol J. Adams's Help! My Child Stopped Eating Meat!: An A-Z Guide to Surviving a Conflict in Diets recommends one of Akers' books to parents struggling with a vegetarian or vegan child; and one of his books is jocularly mentioned in Free the animals: the amazing true story of the Animal Liberation Front by Ingrid Newkirk and Chrissie Hynde as a sure sign of vegetarian conversion. These works also indicate his importance in the development of vegetarianism and especially vegetarianism in Christian contexts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar also has a lot of citations, particularly for A vegetarian sourcebook. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 1 March 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) 01:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though others disagree, I have no problem with a BLP subject's wishes being considered in a deletion discussion but it would be helpful to know where or to whom this challenge has been made. Is there an OTRS ticket? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual seems notable as Colapeninsula points out(above). The fact that he doesn't want the article is not relevant. Tigerboy1966 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's visible at this edit here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. with socks in mind. v/r - T P 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinianum College

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

Looking at the non-independent source provided, it looks more like a dormitory then a educational institute. Therefore, not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are a mix because they offers courses in addition to courses of the university. So i think they can be considered notable. Paolo VI College can be consider important for the building, which was built by Gio Ponti. The structure is famous in Milan--Cormeo (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the alumni that were added, as they don't have a trace of evidence. In some cases it was not even clear if they had studied in Milan at all. I still miss the independent, reliable sources to proof the notability of this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a prove of the courses of this college. it's in italian. http://www.istitutotoniolo.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/brochure-ALTE-SCUOLE-e-Collegi-LD-2010.pdf i don't understand why you have deleted the list of notable students who have studied at augustinianum college????????? --79.45.147.28 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is a list of notable alumni of this college (from it.wiki) with some references (i put only 3 references)

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) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell, its nature is akin to that of the various Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge, a partially autonomous residential and teaching institution as part of a larger university. We almost always keep those articles, if the institution is important and substantial, and there is enough to say. This is a famous university, and there is enough to say, though the current page needs great expansion. What the Italian encyclopedia did is not relevant--wee are considerably more inclusive for academic institutions than most other WPs. There are many other possible sources than newspapers; for European universities, most of them will be paper. the notable alumni is a relevant argument--we have always used this as an indication of notability, even for US elementary schools and especially, back when we were still arguing about high schools, for high schools. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it's a college of a prestigious university. so it's notable like all the other voices on colleges.--Cormeun (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) vote by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cormeo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep --college--95.232.129.129 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you are not another reincarnation of Cormeo? [68] Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm cormeo but not logged in. sorry . P.s. i think that this discussion has not sense. Why all college can have a page?and this no? it is not only a dormitory. see the official website and the wiki italian page (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegio_Augustinianum) ,please and goodnight.--Cormeo (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I pointed out several times before: I miss reliable, independent third party sources. The University website is not sufficient in my opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the closing admin Cormeo, Cormeun, IP 75..., IP 79... and IP 95... are all the same person. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i give you some third party sources:

http://www.collegiuniversitari.org/collegi.asp?cod=47
http://affaritaliani.libero.it/milano/collegio-augustinianum-universita-cattolica080212.html (italian Newspaper)
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1318337&trk=anet_ug_grppro
http://www.istitutotoniolo.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/brochure-ALTE-SCUOLE-e-Collegi-LD-2010.pdf (extra coures of the college)

p.s. I'm cormeo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.162.213 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a famous college like Pembroke College, Cambridge, Linacre College, Oxford, Stevenson College ecc,ecc :I'm cormeo (or ip 79 75 95) i think we can conclude this discussion; NOBODY participates and the few (DGG) representatives are in favor of keeping.

p.s. there is no a limit time in discussion?? so later tonight I think this discussion (and the other about marianum college) can be closed .--79.30.163.138 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have screwed that up yourself, by voting with different IPs, adding falsified statements that the article was kept, removing AfD-templates and the use of a sockpuppet. Why should we believe you? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand for an American college is an istitution with teaching activites and accomodation in Italy for Collegio we refer to a dormitory. The article can be renamed as Collegio Agostinianum.The istitution is notable and well know in italy.User:Lucifero4

Keep His name is Augustinianum. Official name (italian) COLLEGIO AUGUSTINIANUM

Can someone renominate these voices:

Marianum College__Collegio Marianum
Augustinianum College__Collegio Augustinianum
Paolo VI College__Collegio Paolo VI--79.30.164.195 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with User:DGG who has said it more eloquently than myself: notable as a college of a large university and verifiable from the links given -- Samir 02:12, 13 March 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. v/r - T P 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marianum College

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

Looking at the non-independent source provided, it looks more like a dormitory then a educational institute. Therefore, not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:58, 25 February 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 February 25. Snotbot t • c » 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are a mix because they offers courses in addition to courses of the university. So i think they can be considered notable. Paolo VI College can be consider important for the building, which was built by Gio Ponti. The structure is famous in Milan--Cormeo (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should proof it with independent, reliable sources... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges of UCSC are considered educational institute because organizes courses and activities. In fact the italian pages of these colleges (on wiki it) are inserted on the category of educational institute of Milan.--79.45.147.51 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not impressed by a referral to a removed Italian Wiki-page as proof of notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: considering that the italian wikipedia version has been deleted as non-notable, and this one doesn't have any sources --- where are the sources to show notability?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this is a prove of the courses of this college. it's in italian. http://www.istitutotoniolo.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/brochure-ALTE-SCUOLE-e-Collegi-LD-2010.pdf --79.45.147.28 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do believe the college exists, I don't mind Italian sources, but we really would like newspaper stories or book cites about Marianum.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article of Corriere della Sera http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1997/luglio/16/Studente_Pensionato__co_0_970716980.shtml

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) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell, its nature is akin to that of the various Colleges of Oxford or Cambridge, a partially autonomous residential and teaching institution as part of a larger university. We almost always keep those articles, if the institution is important and substantial, and there is enough to say. This is a famous university, and there is enough to say, though the current page needs great expansion. What the Italian encyclopedia did is not relevant--wee are considerably more inclusive for academic institutions than most other WPs. There are many other possible sources than newspapers; for European universities, most of them will be paper. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**Keep it's a college of a prestigious university. so it's notable like all the other voices on colleges.--Cormeun (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC) vote by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cormeo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the closing admin Cormeo, Cormeun, IP 75..., IP 79... and IP 95... are all the same person. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some links:

         *http://www.istitutotoniolo.it/2011/09/28/language-project-2011/ (extra court of the college)
         *http://www.missionline.org/index.php?l=it&art=1577 (newspaper online)

CORMEO --79.30.162.213 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand for an American college is an istitution with teaching activites and accomodation in Italy for Collegio we refer to a dormitory. The article can be renamed as Collegio Agostinianum.The istitution is notable and well know in Italy.User:Lucifero4
Keep, agree with User:DGG who has said it more eloquently than myself: notable as a college of a large university and verifiable from the links given -- Samir 02:13, 13 March 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gocycle

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

Looks like an advertisement leaning strongly on About Karbon Kinetics Limited. The publication of this article, just days before the launch of their new product, makes me a bit cautious. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't know about the launch - I thought the G2 was launched some time ago. My sole reason for posting the entry is that I've just acquired a Gocycle G1 and consider it sufficiently unusual a machine to be worth a page on Wikipedia. I have no relationship with Karbon Kinetics other than being a customer. I'd like to see some positive input to improve the article, perhaps a list of questions that need to be answered? Sejanus Aelianus (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vehicle has had significant press coverage in the UK.[69][70][71][72][73][74] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 1 March 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) 01:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Green Motoring. "Gocycle electric cycle review". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-03-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
James May. "Living the electric dream with the Gocycle". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-03-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Pidd, Helen (2009-06-18). "The gocycle electric bike makes going up the steepest hills an easy ride". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-03-03. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Sorrel, Charlie (2010-02-24). "Gocycle Black, The Non-Electric Electric Bike". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-03-03.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above; significant coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 18:29, 3 March 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Polito

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

Subject appears to lack notability. Sources indicate that she is a real person, but there is little evidence to indicate that she is significant enough to have her own Article page. Aunty-S (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: SNOW nomination. The article I created is (IMHO) well-referenced and nominator seems to ignore our notability guidelines, sources does not indicate "she is a real person", they indicate that she has a very long career (from 70's till nowadays), she has won the two most important Italian film awards (David di Donatello and Nastro d'Argento), and that she has worked with notable directors in significant roles (add to the cited titles Le farò da padre by Alberto Lattuada, Nasty Love by Mario Martone, Deported Women of the SS Special Section, the first Italian nazisploitation film, I guappi by Pasquale Squitieri, Tutto a posto niente in ordine by Lina Wertmuller ). Clearly the subject passes WP:N, WP:V, WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) and WP:ENT#1 (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). Nom lacks of WP:BEFORE point 1:"Read and understand these policies and guidelines" Cavarrone (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination Aunty-S (talk) 14:52, 3 March 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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Franklin's Island

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

Unsourced orphan, tagged since 2009 Brad7777 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ophan tag has been there since 2009, I have added the unsourced tag today Brad7777 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Stricken, see below. Author is notable and so are some of her works, but not this one. There are quite a lot of reviews, but mainly on "user-generated content" sites. Can't find the kind of detailed coverage needed to establish notability. Tigerboy1966 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Google News search above demonstrates that multiple organizations have picked the books. Likewise, there is at least one good Google Scholar reference, and coverage in Sci Fi encyclopedias listed in Google Books. It appears the previous !voter did not look at those sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Can you provide some links to those sources? (I don't see many.)~~ I wouldn't mind working on this. Goodvac (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've sourced all statements in the article and have added a "Reception" section. Also, this book is extensively discussed in "When Science Blurs the Boundaries: The Commodification of the Animal in Young Adult Science Fiction" from the academic journal Science Fiction Studies. Goodvac (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing opinion in light of sources added. Tigerboy1966 02:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep this well-sourced article. Nominator apparently failed to check for sources. -- 202.124.75.63 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm glad someone took the time to look for reliable sources. I found another one at SF Site that reviewed the book. [75] Dream Focus 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work on referencing article. Notable work by notable author. DiverScout (talk) 16:52, 5 March 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. v/r - T P 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Cloukey

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

Sportscaster at a small-market station--not nearly notable enough for a separate article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pretty much the same story as with the Jon Gulliver AfD… this article might suffice on a Presque Isle, Maine wiki if one existed, but there's not enough evidence of notability by our standards. Usually for on-air staff such evidence will only appear for those in the very largest markets… but not so much in a very small market, even if you are among the few that actually stay at such stations for many years (and while WAGM-TV has had quite a few, that's not enough by itself). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 10 March 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. v/r - T P 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gulliver

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

Retired anchor and news director at a small-market station--not nearly notable enough for a separate article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article might suffice on a Presque Isle, Maine wiki if one existed… but there's not enough evidence of notability by our standards. Usually for on-air staff such evidence will only appear for those in the very largest markets… but not so much in a very small market, even if you are among the few that actually stay at such stations for many years (and while WAGM-TV has had quite a few, that's not enough by itself). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the nominator indicates that he doesn't think this person is notable enough for a separate article. Maybe he could then suggest a merge candidate where (part of) this content can be presented? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:40, 12 March 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.

[1] "Occupy Ashland". Occupy Ashland. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

[2] "Occupy Ashland: Actions and News". Webspiritcommunity.com. January 10, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

[1]

[2]