Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 November	5 November >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALCAT test

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

Primarily, this article qualifies for deletion because it fails WP:Notability with the given references on the page. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage". Instead, the references on the page only provide passing coverage and fail to "address the subject directly in detail". There are other sources that could be used to establish notability, such as [1], [2], [3], and [4], but they have been rejected by some other editors and even this is passing coverage. The page also appears to have been originally created by a single-issue corporate account on behalf of ALCAT: See User talk:Inflammation.

Additionally, this article clearly has devolved into a POV WP:Attack page and WP:Coatrack that is not worthy of Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:Attack page claim is frankly preposterous: all reliable medical secondary sources concur in the negative judgements summarized in the current version [5]. Editors from WP:MED, including User:LeadSongDog [6], have long fought abuse of this Wikipedia page as a vehicle to promote this notable quackery [7]. Adding: It's worth noting that this is not the first time [8] that this page has been put up for deletion by an editor who seems intent on obscuring here what the reliable medical sources have to say about the product. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a notable subject, and the references from reliable sources support that. The content also reflects prevailing consensus on the topic; therefore, it is not an attack page. -- Scray (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous medical reliable sources per WP:MEDRS covering this test. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. It has extensive coverage in popular health books Google books result and there is sufficient popular press coverage to establish notability. I see no evidence of WP:COATRACK here. The article reflects what reliable sources say about the subject. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems contradictory that certain editors are claiming there is sufficient popular press coverage to establish notability, but have systematically deleted all popular press coverage from the page e.g. [18], [19], [20], etc., etc. If you can't use the sources that potentially establish notability, notability does not appear to be established with the given references on the page, which only deal with subject in passing and not "directly in detail" as required by WP:Notability. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that here, people are only discussing reliable medical sources. Biosthmors (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to include popular press reports in an article to establish notability, ~~they just have to exist~~. It is utterly inappropriate to include celebrity endorsements in an article about a medical test. For efficacy claims, we rely on WP:MEDRS-compliant sources - of which there are many. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Struck per LSD's comment. 05:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does there have to be anything in the popular press to establish notability? We have more than sufficient wp:MEDRS sourcing discussing this test, we don't need to resort to pop press to establish wp:N. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. Struck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. While Gerez et al. only devote a paragraph to the topic, I find their coverage to be non-trivial. Selected quotes from the paper say that it has been "used in some countries for ... diagnosis" and "several investigators have reported." There is clearly coverage and interest in the topic from secondary medical literature. Biosthmors (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see direct coverage in journals which seem reputable. The test is being attacked but the sources attacking it seem reliable for what they are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's not beat about the bush here. The article has previously contained a lot of content that was promotional and contradicted the mainstream opinion that the test has no validity. Once that was rectified and MEDRS-compliant sources added, the only promotional material left was that which drew attention to a couple of baseball players who tried the test. Now that has gone, the remaining stub does not contain much. It is clear that the ALCAT test is notable, both from the the number of MEDRS-compliant sources that establish its lack of validity, and from the number of sources that anecdotally make reference to minor celebrities who have used the test. All of this is clearly documented on the article talk page. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree topic notable. It is important to have this neutral POV here when people search for this on the internet.lesion (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The important information is that this test is not reliable, is not useful and is not a tool that can be used; while at the same time being promoted anyway. Wikipedia is a resource for the world, and even though the ALCAT promoters are not happy with the facts, it should remain available. This article has supporting material, is notable, and is not an attack article. keep. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 12:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The consensus here so far is universal Keep, the sources all seem reputable and as far as I can tell this stub of an article has been under a nearly constant edit war for 3 years. Leaving the AfD notice up there seems like a too-public volley in a war that should be fought on the talk page. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:57, 7 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Sandoval

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

A well-prepared article by User:Joshuasandoval. Problem is, we do not as yet have any articles about (as opposed to by) the subject in reliable sources, according to my Gsearch and a Google News archive search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wp:notability-suitable coverage in references. Quick web search also came up short on that. Looks like he does good work, wish him the best, but recommend deletion. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per North8000 . $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 13:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about him. Some of the referencing in the article are really articles written by him, but that only verifies he was a staff writer for some newspapers and does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Whpq said, almost every reference in the article are just articles written by the subject, not articles about the subject. I think there was one ref about the subject but it does not establish notability either. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:53, 11 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles of 2012 (Philippines)

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

Also Philippine Music Chart number-one hits of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There isn't any authorative answer as to what the number one charted song in the Philippines is, and thus, no article can be made with a list of it. This article is based on the MYX charts. The article about the base chart was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MYX Hit Chart. The MYX chart has since been listed at WP:BADCHARTS, and it obviously violates WP:SINGLENETWORK. —Kww(talk) 22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing wp:notability-suitable on the topic, also no wp:rs'ing for the claims of the list. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, the Philippines doesn't have an official music chart based on sales and airplay. This chart is only based on MYX which is included to WP:BADCHARTS. Janbryan (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. There is yet still to be a notable chart fron the Philippines, and thus a notable number-one hits list. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since MYX is affiliated with ABS-CBN (to my knowledge), it can't probably be independent. But my main problem is that, MYX's charts are not acceptable, and without an official music chart like Billboard or Oricon, an article like this is just doomed to be not notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 7 November 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. per WP:SNOW. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Branded Fools

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

Deleted prod for non-notable novel by non-notable author. According to the talk page the novel is not even in print yet. —teb728 t c 21:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent references exist, impossible to meet Wikipedia verification policy.-Citing (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion by SPA. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clear delete, no real reason to let it sit around all week, WP:SNOW or just speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be able to become a snow close. This is an as of yet unreleased novel and I can't find anything on the Internet to show that it meets notability guidelines or will meet them when it comes out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (author already removed a CSD without addressing issues). Creator has a Conflict of Interest. Possible promotion for a book. Fails to meet criteria at WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 5 November 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 John Abraham (actor). MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by John Abraham

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

Award list already mentioned in the table about movies list. No need for a separate article. nishantgopal 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is going to be the place where minor awards, not important enough to fit in the main article, are recorded. The content appears sourced and reasonable, I see no policy-based reason to delete. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Forking from main article. Main articles isn't technically long enough to split it. Also the awards will anyways be mentioned in prose in the article. No need to have separate dedicated pages from him. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Anything not significant enough for the main article is not significant enough to go here. Given that the only reason to split is length, which does not apply in this case. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to the parent article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:24, 6 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaunt (band)

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

The band does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:Notability (music) and the page has no real sourcing (other than album listings and a source regarding one band member's death) ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The (already cited) Allmusic bio is one of the longeest I've seen and there are also four album reviews there. Four albums on notable labels means the band passes another criterion of WP:NBAND. First page of GBooks results searching for their last album shows an entry in Brian Cogan's Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture, plus: CMJ New Music Monthly, CMJ New Music Monthly, first page of GNews archive: Washington Post. Further coverage: MTV, [21], [22], [23], and this is without really trying. This is why we have WP:BEFORE. The article isn't good but it needs to be improved, not deleted. --Michig (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michig has shown a number of sources.Citing (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The article is weak on wp:notability-suitable sources, and is badly written (looks like by a member or closely related fan). But keep for a while to see if it gets improved/ sources added in view of Michig's sources/comments. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed by Michig; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs better sources, but releases for Thrill Jockey and AmRep in the mid 90s is enough to guarantee some sort of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources described by Michig. Meets WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:53, 8 November 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 Mojang#Games. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catacomb Snatch

(Find video game sources: "Catacomb Snatch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Really non-notable. A single game created for charity, has almost completely first-party references and fails GNG. Delete or at best merge into Mojang. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wp:notability-suitable sources......well maybe 1/2 of one. The rest are blogs, dead links, and from pages of sites that have noting about this on them. North8000 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mojang#Games, including "Uber" fork info. Charity info is already in Humble Bundle Mojam#Humble Bundle Mojam. Here is another source on the game, but that still doesn't really pass WP:NOTNEWS and very borderline on WP:GNG, since the bundle is the subject of these and not the game per se. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:58, 4 November 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) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mojang per HK above. All RS in the article are for a fork of the game. It isn't GNG notable by itself, but it's worth at least an extended mention on Mojang's page. czar · · 03:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mojang#Games. The coverage is about the Humble Bundle more than the game itself. Diego (talk) 13:47, 10 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Delta

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

A DAB page where none of the listing have articles. No incoming links GrapedApe (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A DAB page where none of the listing have articles. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keeping to mind that there may be evidence to support an article or two, I searched Google News archives but found nothing useful for Wikipedia. I found news articles here (Delta Psi Delta departs from sorority relations group) and here (sorority hopes to become nationally known). While continuing my search, I found this news article that confirms the existence of the Chico club for Delta Psi Delta. Expecting to find something with Google Books, I searched but found nothing useful. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, MOS:DABMENTION. I took out the entries that did not mention Delta Psi Delta, but the others are valid dab entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, items don't have to be article names, the term is correctly mentioned in articles per MOS:DABMENTION, three entries are enough per WP:MOSDAB - this is a valid DAB page, per JHunterJ. Widefox; talk 11:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JHunterJ. Having no incoming links is irrelevant; disambiguation pages shouldn't have incoming links. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per what JHunterJ stated and HueSatLum. Incoming links is not required. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 12 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Child (disambiguation)

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

unnecessary disambig page. the other william child, redlinked, is a parliamentarian who served for 2 years in the 1390's, and who wont ever get an article. I searched WP for other william child's, there are none. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, this should be under Miscellany for discussion, or somewhere else. my mistake.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from creator) Why won't he ever get an article? I see nothing to support the idea that any MP, or any notable person, will never get an article. He now has one. There is nothing at all to be gained by deleting this page, which has two entries and two very easily confused see alsos. Clearly WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found 2 more entries which meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION, and there's actually a few more. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marginal, because everything other than the one is a marginal stub or a "see also" but the page serves a purpose to disambig and navigate between all of that stuff. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page, no reason to delete. PamD 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Bit marginal, but useful on balance. Certainly pointless to delete it now it's there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The boxer could easily get an article, and there are several weaker but still notable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... looks like the boxer is listed as William Childs in Boxing at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Middleweight and William Childs. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed boxer entry, he does seem to be Childs. Regardless, dabs just need at least two entries with an article OR meet MOS:DABRL OR [MOS:DABMENTION]]. It clearly meets, and exceeds, this requirement. Accoding to the disambiguation guidelines, it is unquestionably valid. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in view of the confusion over the boxer, which is perhaps typical of problems with a final "s", might it not be most helpful to merge this one with William Childs (disambiguation)? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say not, possible confusion is dealt with by the see also. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: five valid entries per WP:DABMENTION, per Boleyn Widefox; talk 12:05, 9 November 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. Michig (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRS Football Club

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

Nominating on behalf of Arsenalkid700. Article should be deleted as the club has never played in a national tournament. Article may need SALT, see here. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no evidence of any notability, and constantly re-created. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - agree with GiantSnowman - no notability and PRODed twice (Deletion Log). Vacation9 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Article that was recreated yet still not notable and wont be notable anytime soon. Reason for SALT is because I think that the creator will create this article yet again. Cheers.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO

The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. What is SALT please? League Octopus (League Octopus 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

SALT is a protection against creation of a page with a certain title. Vacation9 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See salting the earth for history. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at Mumbai Football League. It's my understanding that the I-League is the highest league in India. Then, according to Western India Football Association, the Maha League is the next step down in this region. Next is the Mumbai Football League, then the Mumbai Super Division, the Mumbai Division One, and finally Mumbai Division Two, which is the league in which PRS plays. Essentially a sixth division team. The article was recently updated to indicate that it's "one of the most highest-paying clubs in their divisions", that may not mean much as it's not clear who is paid and for what. Neither their ground nor average attendance is listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Seasoning seems appropriate under the circumstances. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played at a notable level, or received significant coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 11 November 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. Michig (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Hero

(Find video game sources: "Land of Hero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable (WP:N) game page with no references. A Google search yielded only the game's page on Google Play, no reliable news coverage. Vacation9 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Google Books provided nothing relevant, I haven't found any sources that would provide information about the game itself. This gaming website provides details about the game but this would be insufficient especially for establishing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by secondary sources, at least in English. However, most of the sources are likely written in Mandarin, and I'm willing to change my opinion if more sources are provided.--xanchester (t) 20:52, 4 November 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) 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zilch towards GNG. Game's kind of new, so watch this Metacritic page for potential reviews. I'll obviously reconsider if there are reliable non-English sources. I couldn't find any. czar · · 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The game was just released and there are no reliable sources for WP:GNG yet. Usual VG sites have only directory entries. I can't google Mandarin, so if anyone provides other language sources, we can reconsider GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It hasn't reached GNG level yet. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no reliable sources for the game. The developer didn't even bother updated their website with its release. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 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. Michig (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Eagle

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

President and Founder of a non-notable company. Fails WP:Notability. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through all 12 references and found zero of the type needed for wp:notability. One that was used as a cite for a rw-notability assertion (Sarbanes) was a dead link of the type that I'm not sure it was ever live. Another assertion was deceptive; the text says an article "featured" her, but the only mention of her in it was that they used a 2 sentence quote from her. So my impression is that the article was written with advocacy. Additions to the article are primarily by 9 SPA's ! !, each with edits only on her and bankers institute, plus an additional editor "ProWriter" which is partially focused on her. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references are from a reliable news source and it seems like this person is not notable. Vacation9 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the coverage is either trivial or from press releases, which are not considered reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been showcased. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:23, 11 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hines Interests Limited Partnership

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

Real estate firm but no real evidence of notability offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: not notable? its a nearly 60 year-old company that owns and/or manages some of the most prime properties worth many billions in most of the world's largest and expensive cities. --emerson7 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just so that it's clear, i think the nomination is wholly without merit on all counts. --emerson7 18:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is quite possibly notable, but no sources have been provided so far except for the firm's own web site and a directory entry. Better sources are needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did anybody (specifically the nominator) make a good faith effort to locate sources? We judge the topic, not the article, which as why it is required to seek out sources before nominating (see WP:DEL-REASON, bullet #7). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 22 October 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, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:29, 28 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references seem correct and the company seems notable according to WP:N. Vacation9 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a company of that size and history an immense number of additional wp:notability-suitable sources inevitably exist. I can't imagine not covering it in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Forever (Nicki Minaj song)

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

per WP:NMUSIC, this song is not notable. It hasn't charted, nor has it received reliably sourced coverage independent from the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Buggie111 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Vacation9 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. The song wasn't even a single. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC, and wasn't a single. Not really a chance for a notable article here as it is now. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:34, 12 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderland Beat

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

Subject fails notability in accordance with WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Subject's website states, "Most of the information and content is derived from open source media, unconfirmed individual sources and personal view point of author. Most content is for information purposes only and is not from direct official sources and in most cases not confirmed. Most information coming out of Mexico is fluid, always changing on a daily basis and frankly, no one really holds the market of credible information to form sense of clear cut validity or formal confirmation, so thread (sic) lightly." While the article provides numerous sources, none actually offer significant information about the subject. When the subject fails to support their own credibility, it's concerning that there would be a number of reputable sources provided. Clearly a promotional article having been previously deleted twice as such, however, I felt this article needed assessment and community discussion due to the sources offered. Cindy(talk to me) 10:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the subject is irrelevant to its inclusion; we have articles on notorious liars and fiction-tellers, which is fine so long as they are notable (which I am not arguing that this subject is, at least yet.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The rationale for deletion is made in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The quote made by the website merely provides additional content about the subject. Sorry for any inadvertent confusion with my personal comment about that statement. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi! I am the creator of this Borderland Beat page. This is the second attempt at creating a page for BB, and is a definite improvement on the first attempt:) I struggled to find material that I could use that would describe what I thought made BB a notable website, and had to make do with the quote in the second opening paragraph. The quote, which describes BB as "a lonely watchtower" pursuing "the vital mission of archiving any available news on Mexico’s meltdown" more or less says it all from my perspective. In as much as it is a "lonely watchtower", I am not aware of any other English language website that makes as comprehensive an effort to cover all the news relating to Mexico's drug war, and in this respect the BB website is head and shoulders above anything else on the web, as far as I am aware. Any news blog that is put together by volunteer individuals in their spare time leaves itself open to the question, "is it reliable?" That is why I was pleased with the references I was able to find for my section "Trusted source", and I thought that that section might legitimately show that the answer to the reliability question was: "yes, it is reliable." The way I read the quote from the BB website that Cindy mentions, it is simply warning that all reported Mexican drug war news is liable to manipulation or holding back on details, and fact checking is not very easy; simply because to do otherwise may displease one or two Mexican cartels and may lead to kidnapping and torture, or worse. I don't believe that the purpose of the statement is to express a lack of confidence in the site's own ability to report the news. If the statement is written in a rather round-about fashion, I think that this is just a reflection of the wish to avoid being openly critical of the drug cartels, who have a reputation for preventing Mexican news organizations from reporting the news freely, but also have a reputation of being resentful of criticism.. A number of contributors to the BB website live in Mexico, and their safety is a concern. Just for information, the majority of material to be found on BB is sourced from Spanish language articles found on Mexican news organization websites, which are then translated into English, together with articles from reputable English language website sources. There is also a small amount of original reporting. Georgeblake (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting way to read the website's comment. For the sake of further confusion, I've gone ahead and stricken the extraneous comment above. For the sake of this article, we need to show notability in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:WEB. In essence, outside of honors and awards received, we need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At the same time, this coverage needs to be about the website itself. It is not significant to merely show that the website is mentioned or used as a source for content elsewhere. Click through the links provided here to see further information about establishing notability and viability for encyclopedic articles. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like this article has notable references (including from the New York Times) that indicate the importance of the subject. It also looks like there are a few of these. Vacation9 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sources aren't actually about the subject. The notability guidelines require significant coverage that is reliable and independent of the subject. Cindy(talk to me) 17:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait. Can I ask for more time? I've been working on InSight Crime and Southern Pulse, two pages that document Mexico's drug war, but I've been really busy with school work. I will be able to tackle this article after Wednesday (7th) and on the weekend. I'm sure we can work things through. ComputerJA (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources provided look like they are more than enough to verify existence of the subject but not much more than that. Good reliable sources really should be about the subject itself, as Cindy notes above. Plenty of things are published in peer-reviewed journals that wouldn't pass WP:GNG as they're often just brief mentions of a particular subject. §everal⇒|Times 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added the following to try and improve the page:
- Added Georgetown University ref to "Trusted source" section.
- Added "Der Spiegel" ref to first section.
- Added new section "Danger to bloggers reporting Cartel violence".

Cheers! Georgeblake (talk) 18:41, 11 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

940s in Denmark

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

It doesn't say anything really, does it? MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid and Removed - The page is not near completion. Please read the relevant AfD nomination guidelines before nominating a page. --Olowe2011 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a stub-class article that simply awaits expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:04, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All - Merge all of 940s in Denmark, 950s in Denmark, 960s in Denmark, 970s in Denmark, 980s in Denmark and 990s in Denmark into 10th century in Denmark. The individual articles aren't notable enough to warrant separate articles. Vacation9 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all List of notable events, like all the other chronological articles. This particular one now has half a dozen items, which is fully sufficient. There's been some question whether we should keep if there's one or two, but I think 6 is beyond question useful for navigation, which is the point of a list. TRhe individual items are notable, the list as a list does not have to be, just useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. AutomaticStrikeout 23:49, 9 November 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 French Montana. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse My French (album)

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

No comfirmed date no reliable sources Rayrayzone (talk) 16:08, 28 October 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 October 28. Snotbot t • c » 16:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This release appears to have been pushed back with no confirmed tracklisting as of yet. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER seem to apply here. Gongshow ^Talk 04:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French Montana. Will be notable when there's more information on it, but for now, it fails WP:NALBUMS.Giants27(T|C) 16:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Its all WP:CRYSTAL not to mention theres not a SINGLE reference in the entire article. STATic message me! 15:17, 11 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Law Olmsted School

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

Delete, I believe that this fails WP:GNG guidelines. I attempted a redirect which according to my understanding of notability unless the school itself is notable should be rerouted to the district page, this was reverted so asking for notability discussion for determining actual article notability sts and whether or not deletion is appropriate or redirect to Buffalo Public Schools Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets GNG guidelines. The school also contains a high school which meets the notability standard for WikiProject Schools. --D-Day (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified secondary schools have a general presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and has plenty of 3rd part RS refs. isfutile:P (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools and middle schools are notable by default, as set out in WikiProject schools... This one is no exception! Easily passes notability guidelines. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Passes GNG. This is a classic example of the reason why schools are aslo exempt from CSD A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really not seeing any way shape or form that this school is notable. The coverage is trivial or based from it's own district webpage, I'd sure like someone to explain to me since I obviously don't see what you guys see how this passes notability. There's no notable alumni, no historic buildings and even less history to show. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a secondary school. That's all it needs. They are invariably kept, as several editors have said above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project talks about showing non trivial reliable sources. There is not non triviable coverage on this school. The article does say most High Schools should be kept that certainly does not mean all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically: Individual articles must usually meet the Wikipedia notability guideline. It has been the subject of years of discussion on how school articles should fit into this guideline. Many proposals have been made for a specific guideline for school article notability such as Wikipedia:Notability (schools). In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always considered notable. (Where is the proof of notability?) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. They're almost always considered notable. In fact, recently they have always been considered notable, as the five keeps so far indicate. So effectively, yes, it does mean all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all is not all and I would appreciate a answer (If you're able) how it does meet those, I'd like to understand see because if I'm off base I need to so you can dance away or around the question but a straight answer with a justification would help me more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this and remember WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cop out that doesn't come close to answering any of the notability standards so I will have no choice but to continue editing according to my understanding of notability guidelines, if this causes discussions that may have otherwise been a waste of time unfortunate but needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively just a waste of everyone's time, since we know what the result will be. Please remember that Wikipedia doesn't have rules. We decide by consensus and long-standing consensus is that all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again arguably this could be avoided by pointing out how the school is notable, I'm not making up the criteria that needs to be met, the wikiproject schools is, we disagree, you'll do what you think is best and I will do the same. This will be a snow close but apparently we'll be meeting again in the future so until that time I am stepping out of this discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains a high school and the program is likely separately notable anyway. The whole point of the notability guidelines is to keep the trivial, unimportant and nonsense off the encyclopaedia. This is why they are guidelines and not policy. They were never intended for attempts to delete non-promotional articles on public institutions of obvious significance based on the nuances of the guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:06, 8 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rhododendron species

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

This "article" is simply a list of red links. Per WP:REDLINK, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Senator2029 • talk 12:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep per explanations of WP:REDLINK below. move to an appropriate WikiProject or User space' per WP:REDLINK, until more than 50% or so of the articles are written. (Although I personally disagree with redlink on the list issue, it's clear on this point.) --Lquilter (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move per WP:REDLINK. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a WikiProject or user space as "lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes" per WP:LISTPURP. KTC (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That means lists that have no encyclopedic purpose once those articles are created (i.e., to do lists), not lists that should be in the encyclopedia as part of the coverage of notable topics. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satsfies WP:LISTPURP both as a navigational index (not all links are red; there are articles on many species in this genus already) and as a "valuable information source" relevant to the genus Rhododendron by listing all species within that genus regardless of whether articles on all those species have or will soon be created.
This also passes WP:REDLINK, which says redlinks are appropriate where the topics "should obviously have articles;" the point about not creating lists of redlinks before creating articles is for lists that have no inherent encyclopedic function aside from being a to do list for more articles. That isn't the case here. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Postdlf. I personally don't have a problem with redlink lists. But, WP:REDLINK says: "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." How to reconcile? --Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and most importantly, I already explained why this list is not merely an "article creation guide", because this list should exist regardless of the separate articles for each species; second, it says "encouraged", which is far from saying "do it in this order or else we'll delete the list"; third, I can't honestly say compliance with REDLINK is high on my list of concerns in building the encyclopedia, nor should it be on yours. There's something wrong if guideline language tells us to delete a list of species within a genus just because most of those species don't have articles yet even though the list is encyclopedic in and of itself, all species listed should have articles, many do, and even more do now since this AFD opened and the list has been seen by more eyes. I am trying to interpret REDLINK in a manner that makes sense, a manner that is consistent with LISTPURP (and actual consensus in this area) and is constructive. If that can't be done, then REDLINK gets the red pen and unhelpful passages will be removed. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter, this list isn't being used "as an article creation guide." A comprehensive list of Rhododendron species is inherently notable and useful for an encyclopedia. First Light (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I mean, I think that it is being used as an article creation guide, but that's not its sole purpose -- so if the article should also exist ... I think I'll wander over to WP:REDLINK and insert a "solely" and see what happens. (-: --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good change. Thanks. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. WP:REDLINK currently contradicts itself, because it later says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions....," which is essentially encouraging the use of redlinks as a guide to new article creation. So adding "solely" would help to make it more clear. Thanks, First Light (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdlf. Also, note, the quoted policy supposedly supporting this AFD does not apply to this list, all of these species are notable by Wikiepdia policy. Maybe something else in REDLIST is supposed to apply here? -Fjozk (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per WP:REDLINK and then redirect to Category:Rhododendron, which alreayd duplicates the blue links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other lists, eg those in List of the largest genera of flowering plants, all links will be blue soon enough. —Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This does not contravene WP:REDLINK, and even if it did, there's a policy about doing the right thing regardless of the rules. (Generally accepted plant species are treated as inherently notable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An "upgrade" to classification of the genus Rhododendron would not be amiss. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is spun off from the genus article and could be expected to be gradually populated. I don't know why Rhododedron has been neglected thus far but the red links are not a problem in this case. Indeed it is useful as a reference point for ensuring that the articles do get written. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid species are inherently notable; these redlinks will eventually be blued. Sasata (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is not indiscriminate, has a defined scope, and serves as a navigation aid. It's true that most of the links are red links, but as per guidelines, red links are allowed when they link to pages that should have articles and are encyclopedic.--xanchester (t) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very helpful list, just as it is. Any genus with that many species should have a list article. There is also room for improvement, kind of like every other article on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:REDLINK is not applicable here. Berton (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly too many to include in the Rhododendron article. I would take the same line as with a stub article, or one inadequately referenced. Yes, it would be helpful to have an article about each of the species listed, but as pointed out the list is useful in itself and the red and blue links both serve a purpose for users in indicating whether WP contains more on the species in question. No doubt each will have an article in due course, but I would rather that editors took their time writing those articles to a good standard. To insist that the list should not exist until each and every species is fully covered would be very unhelpful to users, as would having a partial list with a note saying that the list is incomplete without indicating what is missing. --AJHingston (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would the encyclopedia be improved by deleting a well-defined list of notable entities together with the associated red links that encourage article creation? No.--Melburnian (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each of the redlinks are unquestionably notable subjects. This list could be transferred to the genus article, Rhododendron, but that would overwhelm the article, which is why it's a separate page in the first place. You could remove all the redlinks and list only the blue ones, but that is both misleading (gives the impression that there are fewer species under the genus than there really are) and removes valuable information (a list of all accepted taxa is not trivial information). The list is finite, with a definite scope, and it is undeniably encyclopedic (WP:Source list).

That's the main error in the deletion rationale. The assumption that this is an "article creation guide" simply because it has more red links than blue ones. Ask yourself, if you remove the [[ and ]] from the red links, will the list still give valuable information? Yes. That's why this is not an "article creation guide" and that's why WP:REDLINK and the caveat in WP:PURPLIST regarding "article creation guides" are irrelevant.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst in some cases a large number of red links would indicate a lack of proper function, this is not so here. Furthermore recent changes have made the page more functional.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously important Genus, many sub-articles. Delete argument seems to be not a "delete" argument, but a argument about how best to format the many species entries that do not yet have separate articles. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split into sub-genera as per WP:COMMONNAME. When the article says Hymenanthes, with approximately 225 species, and subgenus Rhododendron, with approx. 400 species, comprise what gardeners typically describe as "Rhododendrons." Two subgenera are generally known to gardeners as "Azaleas", and include many fewer true species: Pentanthera, which comprises the deciduous azaleas, and Tsutsusi, which includes evergreen azaleas it's talking about common names in exactly the WP:COMMONNAME sense. Thus List_of_Rhododendron_species, List_of_Azalea_species, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Rhododendron is about the genus as a whole. Bottom line though, this proposal is outside the scope of this AFD and should be addressed through normal talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article is correct in saying that Rhododendron normally refers to the subgenus, then some rename is in store for us, as per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure what you mean by 'out of scope' for the AfD, with a consensus we can do almost anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - EC The article is a list of species of the genus, so it should not say that it is about the subgenus. I will change it. In the common English, Rhododendron can refer to the subgenus; this is just one more reason for not using common names. The proposal is outside the scope of this discussion. However, if you want to either change this article in this manner, or create new lists by horticulture group, feel free to propose on the list talk page and create the articles. -Fjozk (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - 3xEC Both the main article and the list cover the genus as a whole (not the subgenus), and should be kept that way in my opinion. Stuartyeates, you do raise a good point, but I think the best way to handle that is a sortable list, much like is done at List of Nepenthes species, with subgenera being one of the columns in the list. I think that would provide the most utility and use for readers interested in the genus Rhododendron. First Light (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - P.S. This is a typical Lumpers and splitters discussion that is so common in genus/species issues, so the idea of splitting is valid - just not the best one in this case, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 21:07, 9 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video hosting services

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

Clearly this should have been deleted a long time ago because it is nothing more then an advertisement for the various video streaming services and is not even encyclopedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I haven't seen any responses to my questions.) There's a lot of services on the list, so I don't think it really works as an advertisement for any of them in particular. More importantly, maybe, Wikipedia has a number of "comparison of .... " articles. As a user I've often found them fairly helpful, since they include more information than a standard list. Why is this list different than other similar lists? In particular, since this is AFD, and we're talking about a list, are you asserting that there is a notability problem? or what? See WP:NOTESAL for notability information for stand-alone lists. I would be amenable to a rename proposal, or to deletion if there are grounds for deletion, but I'm not seeing anything in the nomination here. --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the criteria in WP:LISTPURP. This seems to be one of the better examples, unlike, this example where pruning and cleanup is needed.--Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:LISTPURP. Also, the page doesn't have a promotional tone and certainly doesn't exist in an advertising style. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator point to another product comparison article (or just ordinary list of products) that he does not believe are advertisements? postdlf (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly educational and encyclopedic, and the subject of comparisons of these groups has indeed received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 7 November 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 Procedural close. The nominator was proposing a merge, not deletion. This is not handled at AFD. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Digital Solutions

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

This article also exists as Digital Angel. The two should either be merged or this one be deleted. It seems to be outdated. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And both articles share a single problem: the lack of reliable 3rd party sources demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sofixit. Yes, they need to be merged. digital Angel is more up to date, but this one is more detailed. That doesn't take AFD. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - Proposing a merge does not require a discussion at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 7 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Kedem

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

May fail WP:ACADEMIC. SarahStierch (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I clicked on the Google Scholar link in the AFD and saw a number of papers with 100+ hits, including a first-author paper with 300+ hits. So on first glance, Klara Kedem appears to pass WP:ACADEMIC. It's better to only bring it to AFD if you actually believe that it doesn't have notability (e.g., fails WP:ACADEMIC), and have some reason for thinking so. --Lquilter (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information given about the article's subject does not meet the notability requirements. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean, "The information given in the article ... does not meet" notability? Because that is not the same thing as NOT notable. A quick search shows that this scholar is notable, so the appropriate thing is to tag the article to improve the content -- not to delete it. --Lquilter (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator). I believe that the article is adequately sourced for its content and that, with Google scholar citation counts of 571, 307, 172, 122, etc she clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. The press story on her research into medieval writing helps make the article less dry but also makes a (weak) case for WP:PROF#C8 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May pass WP:ACADEMIC. —Ruud 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Eppstein etc. Nominator is advised to consult WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, but is it verifiable? One of the reasons for deletion is "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Oddly, third-party sources are not explicitly mentioned, but WP:V does say "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In this article, there is a third-party source for the deciphering of handwritten medieval Hebrew. That is interesting, but is it enough? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:48, 7 November 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. Michig (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Hodžić

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

A footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Prod was contested with "Let's give a chance to source this first". Bgwhite (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original PRODder. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I removed this PROD I was under the impression Hodžić appeared in game with the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team. It appears he's only played as high as the U-19 level though. Got a little sloppy on this one. My bad. Faustus37 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. He fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:31, 11 November 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 CJ & The Satellites. WP:BAND suggests redirecting band members to the band's main article if the members have not achieved individual notability. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wray

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

Unreferenced, and seemingly non-notable. Barely mentioned at allmusic.com. Kurepalaku (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CJ & The Satellites as a plausible search term. Neither of his other bands appears notable (there was a Canadian band from the 1980s also called Johnny Zhivago who received some coverage - couldn't find much on Wray's band). --Michig (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 30 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CJ & The Satellites as suggested above, or delete altogether, does not have notability to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 00:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. WP:BAND suggests redirecting band members to the band's main article if the members have not achieved individual notability, which appears to be the case here. Gongshow ^Talk 04:57, 5 November 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. Michig (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbul Iqbal

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

Non-notable actor, mentioned only in a couple of blogs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 October 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) 01:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person with fake references

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability of the level which would satisfy the notability guideline. --Slashme (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, delete - Google News and Books provided nothing so I believe any sources aren't English and the article never provides a native name to help widen the search. Although the a.com.pk provides several details, it reads more like a personal biography than an encyclopedia article. If any reliable sources truly aren't English, the article should be added to Urdu Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actor, fails WP:BASIC, that is a pre-requisite for WP:ACTOR. Though there are many results in web search but mostly unreliable and SPS. --SMS ^Talk 06:52, 7 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping in Townsville

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

Arbitrary list and non-notable. We don't have Shopping in Sydney or Shopping in Melbourne articles, places more well known as shopping destinations.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 4. Snotbot t • c » 07:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure whether I should cite WP:ADVERTISING or WP:NOTHOWTO or both. Either way, any sources directly supporting this topic would likely be advertising material (there's unlikely to be any scholarly analysis of Shopping in Townsville) and that which isn't directly supportive of this particular topic would have to be WP:SYNTH'd together to form a conclusion about the broader topic. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an honest attempt to make an article on the topic of shopping in Townsville, so I don't think the NOTHOWTO or ADVERTISING arguments have any merit because this isn't a how-to guide and it isn't advertising simply because it states "these commercial entities exist". Nor does the lack of existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF matter here (it could be that Sydney and Melbourne should also have shopping topical articles). I also don't think SYNTH is applicable either; just because there's no single source that gives an overview of the whole topic does not mean we cannot combine sources together in an article in a manner that those sources still support.
The problem is instead the lack of substance, apparently indicative of the topic's lack of notability: we have purely local sources for a paragraph talking about what isn't in Townsville (no department store), and a list of shopping centres of which only five appear to be notable (so NOTGUIDE problem? perhaps; also quoting NOTHOWTO, which links to the same section, is just confusing). Normally I'd say as we have Category:Shopping centres in Townsville we should remake this into a corresponding list per WP:CLN, but there doesn't seem to be much point for such a small list at this level of locality; a List of shopping centres in Queensland (limited to notable entries) would seem more sensible. So delete as non-notable, and I don't see anything encyclopedic worth salvaging here. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 5 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Watson (film editor)

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

Person does not meet WP:FILMMAKER and fails WP:GNG, as multiple sources of significant coverage have not been found. Article has been tagged for notability since 2009. WP:PROD was contested, but only sources added were trivial mention of his name in lists of film credits. However, GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." —Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Film editors very rarely receive substantial attention and mostly only for their work for films. Google News archives provided minor mentions through film reviews and Google Books provided the same kind of results, minor mentions. Additionally, it seems he hasn't been active since 2009. Although he has edited films with well-known people such as Eddie Murphy, notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that film editors often do not receive the same level of media attention as actors and directors does not diminish their significance. Screenwriters, producers and development executives also receive significantly less media coverage than actors and directors, but films would not have been made without their respective contributions. Editing has long been established as an important part of the filmmaking process as evidenced by their recognition at the Academy Awards. Watson received significant coverage in a 2000 article from the Los Angeles Weekly on the state of African Americans in the motion picture industry which has now been cited on Watson's Wikipedia article. He is the only editor mentioned in the article. He's been previously cited as a member of American Cinema Editors (A.C.E.), which is an honorary society that sponsors the Eddie Awards. His A.C.E. membership alone should establish his notability as only the most established and experience editors are allowed into the organization. The fact that his most recent credit listed on IMDb (which has been regarded as an unreliable source) is from 2009 is irrevelent. If having current credits in an extremely volatile industry were are requirement, any individual that was either deceased or retired for more than three years, would be disqualified no matter how notable their contributions. As of 2009, his professional career spans three dozens years, which is not insignificant. Igbo (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Igbo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a straw man argument. No one suggested an Academy Award winner would not be notable - but Watson has not won one. You're arguing that editing is notable because that it is the subject of a specific Academy Award and so the subject must be notable because he is a talented editor. That's a stretch. The argument about recent credits is irrelevant because notability is not temporary. If he was ever notable, he remains notable now. But a single article in the LA Weekly and an IMDB page are not enough to meet the "significant coverage" requirements of WP:GNG. Your argument is that "not receiv[ing] the same level of media attention as actors and directors does not diminish their significance" and that might be true within the broader "editing community". But it does, however unfortunately, diminish their notability here on Wikipedia, as we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for something (or someone) to be considered notable. Longevity of career, level of talent, popularity, volume of contributions or all-round-niceness are not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (unfortunately). Stalwart111 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the subject to be considered notable as far as I am concerned. Happy to consider any additional sources that might be worth considering. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find credits which verify he works a s a film editor, but I cannot find the signficant coverage needed to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, nor is there significant awards that would indicate recognition of his work. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 7 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Peernock

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

This page was prodded back in January but it was declined by User:DGG, however a recent conversation between myself and DGG agreed the articles basis for having the prod removed are not correct. While the article is ostensibly about an American whistle blower who it is actually about is Robert Peernock a convicted murderer who believes and claims he was the victim of a wide reaching conspiracy by every level of justice to have him convicted for the murder of his wife: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/local/me-242_1_man-convicted-of-killing-wife

The page itself seems to have been created by either Mr Peernock or an associate, given its reliance on http://www.freerobertpeernock.com/ which is a self-published website by Robert Peernock in prison. There are no reliable third party sources to the claims of being a whistle blower other than Mr Peernock claiming he had evidence of corruption that was so damning they murdered his wife and, using surgery, brain washed his daughter to be a puppet and appear against him for the attempted murder of her. Apart from this evidence of notability is reduced to a book by Anthony Flacco regarding the murder and trial http://www.amazon.com/A-Checklist-Murder-Anthony-Flacco/dp/0440217903/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352013251&sr=8-1&keywords=A+Checklist+For+Murder which is instead included as evidence of the conspiracy.

I don't believe evidence of notability has been firmly established and as it currently exists is instead in violation of WP:UNDUE by portraying the individual in question on the speculation they would have been a whistle blower and that the conspiracy against them is valid, rather than the supported case that they are convicted murderer without the possibility of parole. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added some stuff, but I'm sort of piecing all of this together as I find it so it isn't really flowing all that well at the moment. There's a lot missing. I'm also concerned over the span of coverage, as almost all of what I'm finding is by the Los Angeles Times. They seem to have covered all of the biggies, but I'm not too familiar with notability for crimes. Don't we need more than just a ton of coverage from one specific paper? It's an interesting crime so I'll probably track the book down. There's the potential for notability as the Judge was asking for changes in the state law, part of which was due to Peernock having the names and contact info of his jurors in his cell. But I'm not sure if anything came of that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like the crime was the focus of a Discovery Channel show/episode, although I'm unable to immediately find what show it was and when it aired.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It was on a show called "Prosecutors: In Pursuit of Justice". I've sourced it with a link to the TV Guide, although I'm aware that this would be a trivial source at best (TV Guide, I mean).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is now better sourced, with Tokyogirl79's additions, plus I cleaned up the article some and reorganized it a bit for clarity. The book, TV show and heavy newspaper coverage (the Los Angeles Daily News in addition to multiple L.A. Times stories) shows notability. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article is far removed from the way it was originally, and had been for a few years, to the point that this AfD is probably no longer valid. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improved since nomination. Passes WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It received coverage from a major newspaper as well as being the focus of a TV show episode and book. I do think it'd be a good idea for at least one of us to keep an eye on the page in case Peernock attempts to vandalize it in the future.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When user Lid proposed this for deletion, it was a two-sentence article with multiple tags. Tokyogirl79 etal have brought this article up to something of substance, with good sourcing. Doesn't matter who created it. The article is notable now. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 7 November 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 wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arriva South East

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

Because Arriva changing there website to South East, I took it to be a complete rename but was for there website only Davey2010 Talk 23:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why not keep it as the redirect it was before you nommed it? It's only ever been a redirect. seems like a plausible enough mistake for someone else to make if they've renamed their website. this is not the best place for nominations of redirects for deletion, anyway, there's a page for that. Morwen - Talk 23:30, 3 November 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 November 4. Snotbot t • c » 06:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - this is a redirect, so it shouldn't be nominated for deletion here. (Or RfD for that matter, as it would be kept without any doubt.) Sideways713 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary 1984

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. — raeky t 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears only faintly notable; viral videos need a lot of coverage to be notable. This only has one, possibly two, references. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 22 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 28 October 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, L Faraone 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Video is notable. Not opposed to a merge if an appropriate target can be found, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The video's own stats show less than 100,000 hits in August 2008, long after Obama secured the nomination that year. It clearly wasn't authorized by Hillary's campaign, either. It's an oddity at best. Faustus37 (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I like oddities, though. Faustus37 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This gnews search turns up many references, including Huffington Post, Seattle Post Intelligencer, New York Post, and Politico. Apparently the presidential candidates themselves commented on it as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cerebellum. It received significant coverage and critical commentary in reliable sources. Notable. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 10 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Epsilon Zeta

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

Single chapter college club. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this not third party? Although I'm unsure as to whether fraternities are connected to the university in any way, I'd say the article is a third party source. Buggie111 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A fraternity gaining coverage in a college newspaper does not qualify as "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large," as described in WP:GNG. If it did, every single club at every campus would probably qualify.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That coverage is from the San Jose Mercury News, not a college newspaper (though the link itself is to a CSU site). That is definitely an RS and a regional publication from a major metro area. I will see if there is additional coverage. Churn and change (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why does the link point to a calstate.edu address? Buggie111 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the University Public Affairs Office chose to keep a copy. It was originally published in the San Jose Mercury News.Naraht (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have hosted a copy of the original article pulled from newsbank here. It is the same article. Am looking for more sources. Note that college newspaper articles are acceptable, as long as there is at least one regional publication among the sources. Churn and change (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Thank you for the clarification. Buggie111 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep Article in the Mercury News is from non college newspaper.Naraht (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even so, 1 article does not notability make.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was going to suggest a redirect to University of California, Berkeley#Student life and traditions, but it turns out that the name Alpha Epsilon Zeta is not unique to this organization [24] so that would not be appropriate.) This single-campus, less-than-10-year-old fraternity has simply not gained the notability required to satisfy WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the hits on this and the majority for an another organization is for an Honor Society at Rider which is even less well known. (there were a lot of AEZ *chapters*)Naraht (talk) 01:41, 31 October 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, L Faraone 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too small, no coverage in wider media. 128.84.201.40 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 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 per A1 by Hu12. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik

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

Delete, other then a name very little to be found showing this is in common usage. Suggesting this might be things made up one day Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:47, 4 November 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 Synthetic cannabis#United States. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Rozga

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

This person is only notable for their use of K2, a synthetic cannabis which lead to their suicide. This page should be a redirect to an article on K2 (the drug itself), synthetic cannabis or the illegalisation of synthetic drugs. -- Patchy1 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BIO1E. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Synthetic cannabis#United States. Subject is notable for just one event. The content in the article should be included as part of the legal status history of the drug in the United States.--xanchester (t) 03:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 31 October 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, -- Patchy1 02:46, 4 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Synthetic cannabis#United States per WP:BIO1E. Notable for only one event. Vacation⁹ 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per xanchester. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:09, 7 November 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. The delete camp makes a policy-based argument based on WP:NOT that I have to allocate substantial weight to in comparison to the keep side, which relies only on notability. Notability does not guarantee that an article should be kept, it only establishes minimum eligibility. I also find the "walled garden" arguments extremely persuasive: it appears that the "keep" side of this debate wishes to have this sport treated substantially different from all other similar endeavours, but makes no compelling argument beyond their fondness for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 155

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

This yet to happen event fails the WP:NOT policy, it is sourced only to routine sports announcements none of which detail what will be the lasting significance of this event. It will be one of countless hundreds of televised and reported on sports events that take part on the last weekend of the year around the globe. Mt king ^(edits) 02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

for christ sake mtking! its the heavyweight title fight! it will determine the best heavyweight fighter in the world. Just because you cant understand it doesnt mean its not worthy! its pretty clear that you are a bit childish and not happy that you didnt get your own way previously. We are not talking some small event in a tiny 10 person town that has no credibility. this is the largest and arguably the most important UFC event of the year. All the "deletion" and making "one page for all 2012 events" crap that you and your witch hunting mates did a while back ruined wiki as an well presented resource for ufc events. It seemed like it was back on track for quite a while and now your in here trying to ruin it again. Go and find something useful to do with your time & stop trying to wreck something that is a great resource and has been working well for ages. if you dont like UFC, thats fair enough but dont come on these pages just to make trouble! regards josh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.212.219 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — 219.90.212.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP is an Encyclopedia it is not a sports results service, have you got a reliable and independent source for the claim that it will "determine the best heavyweight fighter in the world" because all I see is a plan for a fight between two contracted UFC fighters, there is no indication that the fight will be anything other than routine with a winner and a loser, likehood it will be all forgotten about come the next event except by die-hard fans, the fansites and the MMA blogosphere. Mt king ^(edits) 02:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the relevant part of WP:NOT has not been explained in this regard. Apart from which "countless hundreds of televised and reported sports events" is a misnomer in the regard for an event to determine the heavyweight champion of the world. Given UFC's effective monopoly on mixed martial arts, which seperates it from boxing and a reliance on Ring rankings, the fight between the two individuals who are indeed contracted UFC fighters are also the current top ranked heavyweights in the world. It is a misappropriation to claim that a heavyweight championship fight is of no notability unless you extend that the championship, fighters, and organisation are non-notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWSPAPER, there is no indication that this or the majority of prior UFC events achieve anything like the standard of non-routine coverage in reliable sources that the rest of the community accept as demonstrating notability for events, for example far more people will attend each of the NFL games held that weekend, watch them live on TV than will attend and watch this live and this is the curial part more written about them in world wide sports media than will be about this event (the same goes for most of the world wide soccer leagues) none of them will be deemed notable as the coverage will be routine. The same is true of this, while the MMA Fan-site and the MMA blogosphere continue to bloviate about it, nothing that WP would consider a WP:RS will have any significant coverage on it other than the routine reporting of the results. Mt king ^(edits) 08:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say that pages like this for MMA events are incredibly valuable to the MMA community and I for one, constantly use them for reference. Mtking, your personal 'non-notability' crusade (backed by Portillo, a friend of yours?) is damaging Wikipedia's reputation amongst MMA fans and I don't understand why the policy has changed AGAIN. You are devaluing the hard work of a community of people, for the sole reason that you and a select few others find every single MMA event not noteworthy. Aqueously (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo is just parodying the deletionists. However, this happens to be a case akin to Poe's Law where it's hard to tell the difference. Agent00f (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Meet Kettle. Please desist from making assertions as to editors motivations. Hasteur (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo is an MMA content editor who's spoken to his own intentions before. Otherwise it would be difficult to discern indeed. If folks would stop speaking on matters they have zero knowledge of, this entire charade would've never started in the first place. Agent00f (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:RS as numerous mainstream sports and news organizations have and will be reporting on the event, as it contains arguably the most anticipated rematch in recent combat sports history as well as a number of fights make it one of the best cards in recent memory. Here is one of many so-called "fan sites" that agrees [25] Also, these so-called "fan sites" do qualify as reliable under WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. They are considered reliable my most anyone that knows and understands the sport, they don't have a history of misrepresentation or false reporting, their content is not user-edited and they are independant of the organizations they cover. The article itself passes WP:GNG as well for all the reasons listed above. If any UFC article deserves a standalone Wiki page it's this one. Oh, and here are a few different sources that show the headline fight will determine the No. 1 heavyweight MMA fighter in the world. [26] [27] [28] [29] Luchuslu (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Reason #2 of WP:SK. It's a notable event with a heavyweight title bout, period. This discussion is completely unnecessary and the campaign to rid Wikipedia of UFC articles is getting old. Can we get an admin to close this, please? --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MtKing I thought you gave up this nonsense? Well here we go again. It passes because the Heavyweight Championship is being fought for in the biggest MMA organization on the planet. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources establishing notability and not hard to find. Many have been mentioned already. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes Wikipedia in business to have all of the UFC events on here. Every event is notable and I search through here many times a week. If you are going to use the argument that it is a routine fight that won't be remembered, then delete all of the pages for the World Series, NBA Finals, Nascar Races, SuperBowls, College Bowl Games, etc. My point is that these are all great resources and I actually use all of these sports pages (except Nascar) extremely frequently. It doesn't hurt you to have it on here so stop complaining! Corbin630 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous, if these pages stay removed then it sets a precedent for hundreds of other sporting events to also be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.163.10 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — 86.179.163.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Here is a quote from MtKing, even he agrees that when the UFC has a title fight, there should a wikipedia page for the card. Hypocrisy at it's finest:

"I have a question for you, as you see on Talk:List of professional sports leagues I support your position to an extent, but why have you made MMA your personal crusade to eliminate it off of Wikipedia? Just curious as the whole MMA debate is starting to bleed over into pages that I keep an eye on and I want to know whether it is worth my time wading into the argument on them. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept your primes that it is a crusade, the simple fact that for a long time MMA has operated in a walled garden, using WP as a database of sports results, the foray on to Talk:List of professional sports leagues was as a result of an AfD argument that as it is included in that list, every time the UFC holds an event that has a championship match as they are a sports leagues they should have an article for the event. If you want other background have a look at ANI and it's archives. Mtking (edits) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)"

I think this settles it right here MtKing. Your crusade failed 5 months ago, it's gunna fail again, all we have to do is use your own words against you, give it up bud. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reread that as it is clear that I am not saying what you think I am. Mt king ^(edits) 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - does not have significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources; acts as promotion for an event that has not yet happened, and has not yet received enough coverage to satisfy notability requirements. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:FANCRUFT/WP:PROMO, and possibly WP:NOT --No unique names 05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please, read WP:CRYSTAL carefully. UFC 155 is a scheduled event, not unverifiable speculation. The sources are all reliable and dozen others can be found. The event is also about to happen. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please re-read ALL of WP:CRYSTAL carefully. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Specifically take a look at subpoint 5. Again the same selective quoting from one camp who decide to only respect (parts of) policies/guidelines only when it supports their position. Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Has multipe sources, including news and sports sources. Rehash of an argument that ended with UFC pages reinstated. Pages are just deleted without information being retained. Autokid15 (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has many sources, it's going to happen unless the world ends on December 21st, and we have articles on the other 154 UFC Main Events. This isn't ITN, we're not deciding whether something is notable enough next to other events during the same time period. If you want to eliminate all the MMA event articles, this isn't the forum for that. The Moose is loose! 07:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address all those that say "Keep, it has sources it's going to happen, there is a title fight... etc" just to be clear here, the nomination is based on this article failing WP:NOT, specificity the "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and to date, here, and at the article the only sources are of that routine type, which means the event is not suitable for it's own stand alone page in the encyclopedia. Mt king ^(edits) 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:NOT - "If a topic has received significant coverage (Yes) in reliable sources (Yes) that are independent of the subject (Yes), it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Luchuslu (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read that page at that text does not appear on it. Mt king ^(edits) 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He probably refers to WP:N rather than WP:NOT. Poison Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking, all Luchuslu did was give his opinion on why this article is notable based on the WP:N general notable guide Autokid15 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I did mean WP:N. Luchuslu (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address all those that say delete, WP:NOT DOES allow sporting events to be written, as long as they're written objectively, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Crystal Ball also allows for future events to be written as long as they are not speculative or unverifiable. MtKing could also included the ENTIRE quote, and not just the part that says no articles to be written on sports, or celebrities: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This articles are not being reported as "breaking news." Now, there is another quote that could be taken out of context which would also lead one to believe MMA/UFC/Sporting articles should deleted, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." However, that sentence is refering to writing articles as diaries, which has also not happened. Writing objective, neutral POV articles on UFC events is not breaking news, and is not a diary; so it has every right to have it's own articles. But, even if they were strictly against Wikipedia rules, then why deleted the information without retaining any? Why just delete pages without including the information on the page where it is being redirected? Autokid15 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carpet Bomb Delete from High Altitude It's the same arguments over and over again. Precedent, policy, and guidelines say that the current article is unsustainable. MMA enthusiasts claim every exception in the book to justify keeping the article. Striping away the speculative facts all we have is when and where the event is going to be located. Given that this is several weeks away a blurb in a list article would have been sufficent. Until the MMA enthusiasts decide to play within the lines of the sandbox following the rules that everyone is required to follow, they should be prohibited from using Wikipedia for advocacy of MMA events. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are currently articles for the next five Super Bowls should these be deleted as well? Also, what exactly is speculative? This is a planned event with a date, ___location and planned fights that have signed contracts. The information is not based on guesses and rumors. Noahco (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Noahco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Checkuser blocked by Elen of the Roads[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? The reason why articles for those exist is because there's plenty of verifyable and citable facts in those cases, being tended by a wikiproject that has guidelines giving reasonable inclusion criteria, and is being covered by sources outside the space of the individual sport. I am somewhat uncomfortable with 51 due to the fact that there's not a lot of content on the page. Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't saying that it should exist because they exist, just for clarification one how they are different. When you say "sources outside the space of the individual sport" do ESPN, USA Today, and other non UFC sources not count? If not what is required by you to be considered an acceptable source? Noahco (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article as it currently stands we have 4 references that go to MMAJunkie (which has been shown to not be a reliable source), 1 that goes to MMAWeekly (which has also been shown to not be a reliable source), and one that goes to Sherdog (also not a reliable source). All of these sources specialize in MMA coverage, and therefore aren't really the level and breadth of coverage we want for a article. If ESPN, USA Today, and non-UFC sources cover the primary subject of the article (the event itself, not any of the fighters or single boughts) in more than a single paragraph then it lends the weight to the notability of the subject. A passing mention of "This event will occur on DATE at LOCATION" is the type of routine news coverage that is covered by many portions of WP:NOT and WP:N. Most of these arguments have been made over and over again at various locations (WikiProject MMA, WP:MMANOT, Notability Noticeboard, AfDs, WP:ANI, etc.) Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As further evidence that the deletionist's ignorance of the subject matter hinders competent reasoning on this matter, note that "mmajunkie.com", which is supposedly "not reliable", is a property of USA Today, ironically listed as a reliable source. This can be trivially seen on the bottom of their website: "Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties" (ie a matter of branding), which the deletionists appear to not visited before declaring their conclusion on its legitimacy. It's a good thing that this statement is recorded for posterity so it can be referenced latter. Agent00f (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources - Here are some related articles from Globo.com: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4. I'm sure that they'll help, but they're all in portuguese. I'm busy on other stuff now, but i'll take any useful info from them later. Poison Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are the same "routine coverage" announcements that are listed in the MMA sources. It's a 2 pronged test. First being "Is it covered outside of the community of suporters/boosters?", second is "Does it rise above the typical level of reporting for this event?" Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems like UFC 155 passes both of those tests. It is an event that is covered outside of the community since it is covered by sports and news media, not just MMA sources. It also rises above the typical level of reporting for MMA events, most MMA events don't receive national coverage. Noahco (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are significantly mistaken. The only reference at this time that is outside of the MMA community is the Globo one which indicates the standard "This fight is on" coverage that is typical for the event. The remainder are MMA specialty sites that are not discriminating in their coverage (as been proven many times over at other locations including WP:RSN). It may be important, but to use a collary, would you expect to see an article about the world championship of underwater basket weaving for 2012? The information we have at this time (and every other time we have to belabor this debate) is not enough for an outsider to judge the lasting effect that this event may have. Regardless of the "Do no Harm" suggestion, having these poor quality articles remain in article space in the premiere compendium of knowledge is an offense to the effort and work that is represented in the Featured and Good Articles. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical for a major UFC event maybe but not for a typical MMA event. That's like saying all of the buzz before a Super Bowl is typical of Super Bowls so they do not warrant an article. USA Today, ESPN, Bleacher Report, and Opposing Views all have articles about the event that go beyond the fight card. Also, I didn't realize that Underwater Basket Weaving gets 450,000 PPV buys and is done in front of a crowd of 17k. I can see an argument for UFC on FX or UFC on FuelTV events to be grouped together in one page but major UFC events have more than enough importance to have their own page. Noahco (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOTRELIABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.[6] Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." These websites do not follow these standards and thereby can be considered quality sources. These websites do not have reputation for bad fact-checking, and while they do include editorial opinions and speculative rumours, they are usually not used as sources (and if they are, should be removed and not have the article deleted). These sources are also not extremist, promotional or rely on opinion. MMAJunkie, sherdog try and report MMA as objective as possible; Bleacherreport is an example of a website that is an opinionated questionable source. And yes Hasteur, if underwater basket weaving has enough interest and national/international coverage (including sources), then yes they do deserve their own pages. Autokid15 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agent00f brought up a great point in another debate that MMAJunkie was acquired by a seperate non-MMA focused news source in USA Today. MMAJunkie also won a "Best Media Source Award" recently. Autokid15 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you missed the whole section of MMAJunkie dedicated to what it calls "Rumors" so that would not be a RS then. Mt king ^(edits) 23:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a website has a page for upcoming events call, "rumours" does NOT mean every even on there is a rumour. The event has since been officially announced by the UFC and has been commented on by multiple sources, which includes TSN, ESPN, USA Today (MMA Junkie, but not the rumours section), UFC, Sports Illustrated, amongst other sources. If you click on ANY of the links for the "rumours" page, you would see MMA Junkie goes further by citing other websites on the progress of the event and includes an asterisk to see if it is still a rumour or officially announced. Autokid15 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's perhaps even more amusing is that any of the "reliable" sources listed above generally have some sort of society page dedicated to far less substantiated personal rumors about manufactured celebrities such as the latest contestants on America's Top Model. Just observe the silence when this plain fact is pointed out, only for the same dishonesty about MMA sources to be repeated at some later time. Agent00f (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty desperate, yet par for course. It's rather the point of *investigative* journalism to uncover news, not simply parrot off the AP/KR wire. So the real question here is why are folks who apparently have no understanding of how journalism works making arguments about sources in the first place. Agent00f (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is just more of the same failed BS continued from months ago by the same couple of people. As simple evidence of their bad faith, consider MtKing's comment on this page, which tries to justify deleting the main list of MMA/UFC events because it's "over 80kb long". Those familiar with this matter know all too well that not a few month back the same couple editors supported a campaign to consolidate/cram dozens of pages' contents to >500K sizes, resulting in incredibly inconvenient use. The shameless disingenuous intent here is plain for all to see. Agent00f (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, that is a personal attack against myself and MtKing. You've been warned multiple times regarding personal attacks, especially in making assumptions about other editors intentions. Strike it immediately or I will be forced to take you to ANI to review your continued and persistent personal attacks against those who do not agree with you in respect to MMA articles. Your previous RfC/U and multiple trips to ANI should have indicated that this behavior is unacceptable, and knowing the mind of ANI currently I know that the tollerance for personal attacks has not increased. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of basic historical facts, which is evident given that no one is refuting its accuracy nor have they ever. It's also notable that this editor Hasteur initiated those previous political attacks against me (ie projection of own behavior on others), all of which have failed; this only strengthens the claims of absolutely shameless behavior, which again note is not refuted or even denied. Agent00f (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

same failed BS, same couple of people, same couple editors supported a campaign to consolidate/cram,shameless disingenuous intent here is plain for all to see. All of these are personal attacks, Ad-Hominem attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Your RFC/U again is proof that not just my projection of my own behavior. I was just sick and (Redacted) tired of having to belabor every last single nit of a point on every single event that was and may yet be for MMA articles. Political attacks are not a prohibited behavior. Personal attacks are. I ask again Will you be reasonable and strike the personal attacks that have been identified? Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the previous deletions attempts (and personal politics waged against me like the RFC/U started by you), all of which resulted in no net change, were initiated by the same couple people are simple facts; facts whose truth that no one denies. It's also a fact that reality tends to reflect poorly on this sort of behavior. Given that this editor cannot seems to discern the trivial difference between objective facts and personal attacks, his opinions which necessarily predicate on this understanding carries zero weigh. Agent00f (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, where I do agree with your POV, please don't turn the debate into a personal attack on Mtking and Hasteur, there are better more impactful ways to get your point across by accessing the notability pages on wikipedia. Hasteur, stop exacerbating things and threaten/taunt users; it's only making things worse. Now, please let's keep things on topic Autokid15 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not all reality reflects well on all people. This is simply how the world/nature works, and should not be confused with specific logical fallacies. Please read the description of an ad hominem if this isn't clear. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! If the ufc 155 page with the biggest fight of the year gets deleted, then all of the other ones should be gone as well. What was the result of all of the previous ranting by mtking and others and why is ufc 155 being targeted now? Mtking whether you like it or not, MMA is becoming a recognised sport among more than just die hard fans and the ufc is also becoming know as a MMA promotion to all types of people. Being on FOX is proof of that. They wouldnt pick something up that didnt have broad appeal and was only targeted at "die hard" fans. There is coverage from sites other than the mma blogosphere as you call it... Mirror this yahoo link speaks about the current heavy weight champions previous fight Yahoo ESPN Sportsmole USATODAY LATIMES Toronto Sun

10:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC) regards josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.198.180 (talk)

Nothing to do with the notability of the sport, association football is notable not every international soccer game is notable enough for an article, the same is true for every MLB, NFL, EPL, AFL game which are covered by countless news sources, far more than any MMA event. Each of thoes sources are just routine reporting on a sports event and that is exactly what this event is, just a routine sports event. Mt king ^(edits) 10:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you obviously dont accept or understand the level of event this is. You didnt respond to my question... what was the result of your previous efforts to derail the use of wiki as a reference for the largest MMA events in the world?

regards josh 182.239.198.180 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the substantive coverage that I'm seeing is coming from unreliable sources. Do mmajunkie.com and the other source websites have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? As simple websites, we can't assume that they're reliable, unlike things like smaller newspapers that aren't well known but that have been around for a long time. Let's wait until we get coverage in books and/or academic journals, or substantial coverage in media sources that we know to be reliable. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've improved the article and added 2 more sources that meets WP:SOURCES and WP:IS. Just to clarify, MMAJunkie and MMAWeekly are not related to the UFC directly, but to MMA in general. And yes, they have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Poison Whiskey (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You guys never grow tired of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for keeping. You guys (MMA boosters) ever get tired of being excited about this months "Most Epicest Faceoff of All History in the past and future"? Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, please keep this debate civil and do not use personal attacks or I will be forced to take WP:ANI actionAutokid15 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof of said Personal attack or retract your statement. I was parodying the IP address in addition to several of the typical keep reasonings. Based on your percieved PoV (suporting MMA) do you really think it is wise to be standing up on the soapbox proclaiming yourself to be a paragon of WikiVirtue? Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL U MAD, keep fighting this losing battle, friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.32.2 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My stance on MMA should not in any way conflict with the objective arguments within this debate, I try and keep things civil. If you would like an example, I would be glad to show it. Your argument, " You guys (MMA boosters) ever get tired of being excited about this months "Most Epicest Faceoff of All History in the past and future"?" is statement that falls under the category of Ad Hominem within the WP:WIAPA or the No Personal Attack page. This is because your statement generalizes the other side of the debate and making your point personal to the other users. As soon as you said "You guys (MMA boosters)" you made the argument personal and generalized the person you're debating against. Your reply was not constructive in any way to the statement (even though the statement was also not constructive and was opinionated), regardless what the OP said. Let's keep this debate civil, objective and on topic. Autokid15 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now seems that the debate is more of, why include MMA articles on individual events and how are they notable? Firstly, if this is the issue, then these articles should have NOT been nominated for deletion, but rather have a tag placed on them so EDITORS can verify this information; deleting information can be classified as vandalism. Secondly, there seems to be an issue of the use of sources, which puzzles me. Wikipedia defines questionable sources as, "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." MMAJunkie, Sherdog, TSN, ESPN, Globo, and other websites are not extremist or promotional in any nature. These sources are sporting and mixed martial artist websites written by paid professionals and are not extremist or promotional in ANY nature. Wikipedia also says that reliable sources are published sources, meaning that articles from the preceeding websites can be classified as reliable. One of the few times that these are not reliable is when the source used sources the wikipedia article for it's own source, which other than some Bleacher Report articles, the preceeding websites do not conflict with. Even if these sources were completely unreliable, the first steps that SHOULD have been taken were the and then merging these articles together into one omnibus. This was tried earlier this year and failed, the resulting articles were then promoted to their own pages again. This was simply because the size created was ineffective more many users, causing long loading times, especially considering that it was almost conflicting with Wikipedia's 2048 kilobytes size limit. When it comes to notability to the individual events, means they must have met the general notability guide that Luchuslu was trying to say. Generally, the notability should be questioned if the article is "breaking-news" or written as a diary. Rather, these articles have been written objectively. Any other is argument is subjective and wikipedia warns not to rush to delete this articles. Even if you have a problem with the sources, wikipedia says that "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." This means that if you should NOT rush to delete, purely based on sources and notablility. Considering that these articles affect a wide social group, have multiple sources and is reported on both nationally and internationally; these articles have every right to be on wikipedia. However, if you still have an issue, please do not rush to delete as this is only doing more harm to wikipedia than good and there are more civil approcahes to get your side heard, remember there are less detrimental and lazy alternatives than just deleting these pages. Autokid15 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Luchuslu (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the only solution left after trying the other routes to retain said content. It has been tried multiple times to merge content into a reasonable index if it is not viable as a stand alone. It has been tried multiple times to get some sort of minimum standard about what qualifies a individual event for the notability threshold for Wikipedia. It has been tried multiple times to convince editors to conform with Wikipedia's policies/guidelines/rules. The editors who (collectively or not) know that by raising a sockpuppet/meatpuppet army can defeat any discussion of removing/refactoring MMA content by sheer numbers ensures that the status quo remains exactly where they want it. Deletion is one of the few places where the strength of the argument (and it's grounding in WP policy) is ensured to win out over the count of !voteers who can be canvassed/socked. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous efforts by the same couple editors all focused on deleting/restricting as much content as possible or rendering results which make usage incredibly inconvenient, which is exactly why it failed over and over again. This time is no different, and the arguments are basically a completely rehash with nothing new added. So it's a simple matter of fact that the deletionist methodology here is "if at first, second, and third you don't succeed, shop shop again". Agent00f (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eggxactly! Hasteur can try to cll a penis a bannana all he wants, but ask any sexually experienced adult and they will tell you it is not the same thing...not by a Califonia mile! So, because there is no real reason for deletion, he'll just continue to make things up as he goes. My guess is he and Mtking were so embarassed when the tried MMA, that they now have it out for th sport and since they cannot do diddly with their fists in real life, they hide behind keyboards all full of themselves only to fail here as well. --Nurple is the New Purple (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked Sock. Mt king ^(edits) 03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW as no account has used a valid policy based reason for deletion. Yes, we see Mtking and his meat-puppet account Hasteur spouting the usual dishonest gibberish, but no legitimate account has, nor could they offer anything even remotely approaching a respectable reason for deletion. As such, it is plainly evident to all with a brain that Hasteur and Mtking are in clear violation of WP:DICK, WP:TEND, WP:TROLL, and WP:VANDAL. If nothing else, keep per WP:IAR, because frankly deletion is flat out idiotic in this case. Removing sourced content about a notable topic provides no benefit to anything and is in fact detrimental per WP:SENSE. Thus, the only option here is to speedy keep and ban Hasteur and Mtking from future MMA related discussions. --Nurple is the New Purple (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked Sock. Mt king ^(edits) 03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please, keep the debate in good faith. If you want to refute Mtking and Hasteur's points, please look at the notability page on wikipedia, especially on events. Thank-you Autokid15 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same arguments have already been repeated ad infinitum over a year or so, but that evidently doesn't cease these low cost annoying AfDs from being initiated over and over so it's unclear why it's implied that repeating them yet again will stop the problem. Agent00f (talk) 22:20, 6 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Forest Archipelago

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

This article is about a micronation and contains only one "source" -- a link to the organization's own former web site, which apparently no longer exists and has been purchased by somebody in Japan. (The micronation supposedly is located within the United States and its official language is supposed to be English, so the current web site apparently has no connection to the original micronation.) A prior version of this article was deleted in an AfD in 2005 but the page was re-created anyway. I recommend another deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm been accused of leniency when it comes to AfD, but micronations like this put the old canard of "i was in a band in high school, we were pretty big" to shame. Your band and your pseudo countries may be good dating material, but they do not make wikipedia articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I haven't decided~~ Delete. But I did look up Lonely Planet's tour guide to micronations, and it does feature the Northern Forest Archipelago in some detail, a section of about four pages. I think that's a pretty strong claim to notability for a micronation, but I don't think I can nonvote 'keep' without at least one more source, and I haven't found that yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my vote from 'undecided' to 'delete' after some more research and reflection. This article was deleted in its first AfD, and then recreated. The subject is not more notable now than it was then - I wasn't able to find any more recent sources than those that were used in support of the older article, and in fact, since the NFA's web site appears to no longer exist, and there aren't any recent sources, it isn't clear to me whether this organization even exists any longer. And while there's no problem with writing articles about things that no longer exist - we do have articles about USSR, Cardenio, and Douglas Adams- I'm not sure that in this case, an article is needed. Who will search for this? What can we tell them that we're sure is accurate? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~yawn~~ Delete After you've got into a guide that only exists to publicise its 'clients', what do you do with a micronation? Non-notable like the vast majority of the others (I except ones that have a physical existence and coverage, like Sealand and Hutt River) because they do nothing and are nothing. And probably a lot of the people living next door don't even know they're living on a frontier... Peridon (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Although I am usually partial to micronations, this one just isn't anything special. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: micronations can be notable, but they really need coverage approaching that of Sealand in order to have that status. This definitely isn't anywhere close to that. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 6 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenuity

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

An article about an editor which I wrote several years ago which is no longer maintained or widely used. The article is an orphan and is suitable for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msouthaf (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since requested by article creator. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one RS to an academic paper insufficient to establish notability of this software. Created by an SPA. If User:Msouthaf above is the same as the article creator 'OtherRandomDude', Msouthaf should make a note to that effect on his user page. Dialectric (talk) 12:46, 9 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Fraser (policeman)

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Fraser is notable for nothing else than for his death. Although, his death has received a lot of coverage, Fraser is not notable himself and does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete- not notable at all. Masterknighted (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded a bit. Autarch (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability threshold, albeit narrowly. We should look to improve and expand not delete, if possible. Quis separabit? 14:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior police officer. Assistant Chief Constables generally meet my notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject of an ongoing investigation who died unexpectedly during the investigation. I think this meets notability requirements.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:18, 28 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sensationalistic Sun-type tripe about an otherwise unnotable policeman. Ephemeral news coverage with no substantial biography. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not permanently notable. It is not clear that how serious the allegations were, or that they will have any significant lasting effect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of ingoing investigation. seem to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES (we almost never have kept assistant chiefs) and WP:ONEEVENT (this person is only famous for one controversy). Bearian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing to this effect on WP:OUTCOMES and I don't recall a British ACC ever being nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 1 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having hard time understanding the rationale for the keep votes here. I guess a "no consensus" and a renomination in a few months might make things clearer though. But current text of article doesn't seem to distinguish him from your typical local official who gets in some potential trouble.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't clearly indicate to me why this person would be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete -- I expect there will be an inquest, and what he had allegedly done wrong will get reported. The accusations must have been serious to lead him to kill himself. Nevertheless, the rank he reached is one to make him notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: er, um: "the rank he reached is one to make him notable per se"?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe Assistant Chief Constables would be routinely considered suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles, and coverage relating to allegations and subsequent death are not enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:45, 11 November 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. Spinning Spark 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Democrat

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

Delete, term does not appear to be in common usage and scores no hits for it when I google. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a list of "Democrats who have endorsed Republican Romney family members for political office". That doesn't bring the term into existence. While they could be called "Romney Democrats", they haven't been called that. The term has no currency within the media. A term listed in the article itself as a "see also", Reagan Democrat, was in wide use for decades. Romney Democrat, you're no Reagan Democrat.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify !vote: move the article's content around, change the article's content, do whatever. I'm pretty much fine with whatever the title and/or or content is, just as long as it is not called "Romney Democrat".--Shirt58 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC) If in a few short hours, Governor Romney becomes President-Elect Romney, the term may gain currency... but "first, catch your rabbit"--Shirt58 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete. Well, perhaps the title of the article should be renamed to "Democratic and liberal support for Mitt Romney in 2012"? I was trying to use a shorter term to leave open the possibility that there might be some Democrats who supported his father George Romney for governor or his mother Lenore Romney for U.S. Senate.

Contractor screening

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

Little encyclopedic content, largely a listing of US-specific practices and regulations. Previous copypaste issues that may or may not be resolved. Anything salvageable in here is covered elsewhere, at pages such as background check. Hairhorn (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somebody's essay, expresses POV. Sources aren't there for this as a notable concept. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 30 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with background check. Many google books sources for this, such as [30], [31], [32]. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the entry that's worth merging? i don't see it. Hairhorn (talk) 03:50, 11 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 12 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baylen Leonard

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All sources listed are primary sources. Legoktm (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear failure of WP:BIO for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 27 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:15, 7 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RelayFax

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

Seems to be non-WP:notable product. A couple of independent mentions in google books, but that's it. The so-called CNET review is a run-of-the-mill download page containing "Publisher's Description" and one reader/user-contributed review, which said it sucked (and gave it one star out of five). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether it sucks or not is irrelevant. I thought it was notable when I created it 6 years ago. We were all n00bs once :-) Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:10, 22 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:51, 27 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability of this software. Above, article creator has voted for deletion. (six years ago the notability and sourcing criteria were much more loosely enforced) Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that Google books mentions do not constitute significant coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 7 November 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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew A. Michta

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

A piece of pure puffery largely written by single purpose accounts with obvious connections to the subject. In fact one of them openly discussed being assigned by the subject to improve his WP biography. (see the article's talk page) Most of the sources have a close connection to the subject. Reading this it is hard to even know what this guy does as it would have us believe he is directing an office in Warsaw, a professor at a college in Tennessee, and a "senior scholar" in Washington D.C. all at the same time. Seems like the article is a desperate attempt to claim notability and get some free publicity to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Neutral. A GS h-index of 9, perhaps not quite up to levels expected in a well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I should like to add that I dissociate myself from the tone of some of the comments made on this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:PROF. The sources are a grab-bag of primary sludge and bloggy onanism. Together, they wouldn't constitute enough of a WP:RESUME to win him a temporary adjunct gig in a trailer-classroom planted behind the main buildings of the local community college. Qworty (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couple points:

Michta is the M.W. Buckman Distinguished Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College.[33] According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". We can discuss if Rhodes College is a major institution, Forbes rated Rhodes 47th among all American colleges.

Michta was a Fulbright Research Scholar 2000-2001. "The Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious awards programs worldwide". According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." UPDATE: unable to confirm on the (primary source) Fulbright list [34] Perhaps he was working in a capacity related to a Fulbright grant but not a direct grantee.

I found a BBC quote that called him a "well-known expert".[35]

The US Embassy in Poland lists him as "An American expert in Poland".[36]

There is other stuff in his resume[37] that points to meeting notability guidelines that needs more research. Obviously everything needs secondary sources which has not been done yet, thus I'm not making a vote yet. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per distinguished professor title at a significant institution (the other citations from Green Cardamom help in establishing notability as well. The DP title though is enough on its own. Without the DP, the FRS + Full Prof. + BBC quote together would be enough for me). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes College doesn't qualify as a "major institution." It is a small school in Memphis, with only 1800 students, and ZERO graduate students, that changed its name to Rhodes College only in 1984. Frankly, if Michta is supposedly so notable, it's hard to see why he can't get a better teaching job than that. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enrollment size, home state or name of a school are unrelated (for example prestigious Amherst College is a small liberal arts undergrad with 1800 students). Forbes rated Rhodes 47th among all American colleges and universities in its 2010 publication of America's Best Colleges.[38] U.S. News and World Report consistently ranks Rhodes among the nation's "top-tier" liberal arts colleges, ranking the school 47th among liberal arts colleges in 2010.[39] By comparison this would put the college in the top 5% or so of all American colleges (in 2010). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at your links [40] [41] before you put them up? The words "Rhodes College" don't even appear there! Qworty (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I didn't look just copied from the article. They appear to be 2009 stats (Forbes rank #62). The 2010 stats for Forbes[42] (rank #47) and US News [43] (rank #54). No reason to focus on 2010 (other than they ranked highly that year), the point being it regularly ranks highly among American colleges. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the Rhodes College site, "Andrew A. Michta is the M. W. Buckman Distinguished Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College, a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States." I'd say that passes WP:PROF. So Rhodes College isn't Oxford. Big deal. It's fully accredited. Besides, Michta clearly has more to show than that. Faustus37 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distinguished Professor is clear. The guideline for "Major" institution is completely subjective, so I apply a common sense interpretation that to be "Major" means to be "Not Obscure". Since we're talking about academics and not sports coaches, the determination should be made on its academic record, not whether you've heard about them on ESPN. That's the whole point of having a separate notability criteria for academics anyway. Given its coverage in Forbes and elsewhere, I call Rhodes a "Major" institution academically, so the criteria is met. Celtechm (talk) 06:54, 5 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bori Relationship

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

Not notable or encyclopedic and doesn't include reliable sources. Really not useful on an encyclopedia. Vacation9 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made up fan relationship name. Not used in show. PROD was deleted. This is about as far from notability as one can get. Too trivial to be an article in wikipedia. There is a character article for the show, this type of info belongs there, if it is going to be in wiki at all. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG as the topic has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only listed reliable source that mentions the topic is not independent of the subject—it is from the broadcast network itself. The other references are from Wikia and Wikipedia, both are not reliable sources for referencing. The aired episodes are primary sources that can only be used for non-interpreted factual information. The characters in the show fail WP:GNG for their own articles. A derived relationship name is even less notable. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://www.nick.com/celebrity/news/victorious-bori-versus-bade.html this is a URL from Nick.com, the network the show is run by stating the couple name as Bori, making it official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbuckslover123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This URL is from the network and is not independent of the subject as is required to establish general notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable fan speculation best covered in series or character article, if at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Geraldo Perez. --Webclient101^talk 04:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar article on same subject was created by same author. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori and Beck Relationship. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed that AfD and merged the two pages to this title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect left from the merge at [44] should also be deleted if this article is deleted as it is not a useful search term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:17, 5 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Strawberry Alarm Clock

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

Non-notable show, no sources, fancrufty. Last AFD way back in the Stone Age failed to reach consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear notable. --No unique names 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Sorry, but is the above !vote based upon any type of source searching? Several sources are available by simply clicking on the Google News archive search above and then reading some of the links. See also WP:N and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG per a plethora of easily-found reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this radio program. Source examples include, but are certainly not limited to: [45], [46], [47], [48]. Several more sources are available using this customized search. Deletion in this case doesn't serve the encyclopedia functionally, because per the project's editing policy, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the local sources from the Independent, have the feel of a routine reports on announcements, they have been thrown in a section of the article to give the appearance that it is referenced but do not support anything in the article. If anything can actually be sourced to a WP:RS then suggest a section in the article on the station and a redirect. Mt king ^(edits) 21:44, 3 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic seems notable and there are many reliable sources about the subject, as stated above. Vacation9 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many reliable sources available as showed above by Northamerica. Cavarrone (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some references through 2006 are:

"DJ Joan Hurt In Car Crash". Daily Mirror. April 29, 1998. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
"Ireland Goes Reggae Crazy". Daily Mirror. June 15, 1998. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
Harry Browne (December 11, 1999). "Second Comings". Irish Times. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
John Perry (February 8, 2000). "Ape jape girl gets her man". Daily Mirror. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
Harry Browne (February 2, 2002). "Collins the star takes a pop at Louis". Irish Times. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Sharon Millar (March 23, 2002). "Megaphone Monk Arrest". Daily Mirror. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
"Solo artist on a solo run". Irish Times. March 23, 2002. p. 53. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
"Just A Minute". Daily Mirror. July 24, 2002. p. 33. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Emmet Oliver (February 12, 2003). "Today FM and RTE lead the race for listeners". Irish Times. p. 3. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
"It may not be very rock 'n' roll but research is the key to radio". Irish Times. February 14, 2003. p. 60. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
"Joke about puppy 'in poor taste'". Irish Times. June 21, 2003. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Sean O'Brien (December 21, 2003). "Hot People: The fake riles Snake:Singer Blows His Top Over Britney Jibe". People (UK). Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Joe T Mooney (October 18, 2005). "On the Couch". Irish Times. p. 8. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
"Listen Up". Business and Finance. March 9, 2006. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
Paul Martin (November 9, 2006). "Justin no to comic song hit". Daily Mirror. p. 7. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Samantha McCaughren (November 17, 2006). "Today FM is hot on the heels of out-of-tune 2FM". Irish Independent. Retrieved November 4, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

There's more references beyond 2006, but you get the idea. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good finds. The Mirror called them a "hit morning show". Things happening to them or their host get coverage in various reliable sources. Dream Focus 07:48, 5 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Makes it Tick

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

Non-Notable program. Search on Google and Yahoo showed no disternable result. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no substantial coverage to establish notability for this TV program. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 30 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references in article nor out of the article, definetely doesn't satisfy WP:N. Vacation9 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBird

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

The article appears to describe a business that never happened. It reads like an advertisement and, as it stands, the article barely asserts notability (CSD A7). RA (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability or the fact the company operated. MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator. Advertisement and doesn't assert notability. Vacation9 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't distinguish itself from the endless other failed business ventures.Citing (talk) 22:41, 4 November 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.