Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 8 January 10 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus, and I was quite close to calling this one an outright keep. Many of the rationales for deletion amount to assertions of non-notability, and there is nothing here that refuted the points made by e.g. Lowellian. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Webb

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

Not really notable for anything other than ESPN not being able to take the camera off her during the BCS National Championship game. Although she was Miss Alabama, she hasn't won any other notable pageant. If you look at the other "Miss U.S. States" women on the template at the bottom of the article, you'll see that most have other modeling/pageant info on them. She has only won a single pageant and is famous mainly because of social media, therefore I believe the article is irrelevant. Thechased (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete- This women's primarily notability was a minor controversy, and Miss Alabama is not enough for an article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Save-As long as wikipedia includes Kim Kardashian, the bar is low enough to let this one over. User:Liptonius|(talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although I agree with the nominator, she has suddenly become notable because of the ESPN commentator, she is notable for Miss Alabama but not notable enough. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sweet Jesus please. No. Of course not. Some old guy says something about some young girl, she kisses a hot-shit quarterback, people follow her on Twitter, and we have a Wikipedia article. No doubt Dream Focus will be here shortly to argue that Miss Alabama is in fact a position giving notability, but it ain't. Roll Tide, and delete this quickly. Come on man. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there some sort of precedent where winning a state level pageant was enough for notability purposes? Don't get me wrong- I think that it'd be better to have something along the lines of List of winners of Miss Alabama USA pageant listing all the winners and redirect there for all winners that don't have individual notability. I just seem to remember a lot of AfDs closing with "keep" because a state level win was considered notability enough.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re Tokyogirl's question, we already have an article for Miss Alabama USA, which lists all the winners; indeed, Ms. Webb's bodacious photo is at the top of that article.. My recollection is also that a lot of state winners have been kept on the basis that winning a state pageant (and the coverage attendant thereto) conveys notability. While I appreciate where Drmies is coming from, I also think this case is not so easily dismissed; Webb has now received substantial coverage for two different events so she can't be categorized as a WP:BIO1E case. My own inclination would be to let this article hang around for 6 months or so and then come back and see if she has disappeared from public view or not. But I certainly understand the reasoning of the delete !votes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Drmies has an interesting Auburn-Alabama problem, like that happy couple does, incidentally. But if there is "controversy" (our buzzword for "trivia"), it's for the old guy's article, not for this one. And winning a state pageant, I don't see how that is enough grounds for notability. Where does it stop? Clanton, Alabama, has a Miss Peach competition in like a dozen age categories. And maybe the Homecoming Kings and Queens at major land-grant institutions then should be notable as well: they generate local coverage. How notable is Miss Alabama 2012, with the cut-off date for news coverage set at 1 January, before anyone outside of the state of Alabama knew who she was? This notable: zero hits. Someone who's better at searching through coverage may come up with more, but I think it should be clear that before the old guy's remarks (that's a controversy? I should apologize to the country to, since I just farted in these here United States) there was no way she would pass the GNG, which leads me to believe that such a title alone does not make one notable. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If winning a state-level pageant has previously been deemed enough notability, I think we need to revisit that. As for the "controversy", that is is bunch of trivia, nothing more. Yeah she's pretty, but next year no one will no who this woman is, unless she does something else. LadyofShalott 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given the plethora of coverage that has happened to this women lately, in addition to her being Miss Alabama (I would presume she then competed at the national comp)I presume that she is notable. I would like to respond to Arxiloxos that notability is not temporary in regards to coming back in six months. Either she is right now, and it stays. Or she isn't, and it goes. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know and support WP:NTEMP, I cite it myself all the time. But as a practical matter, sometimes we see bio articles that are kept the first time through and then when they are reviewed later, everyone says, "why did we ever think that person was notable?" My hunch--just a hunch--is that this could be one of those times--or, alternatively, she might have her own reality show in 6 months. One way or another, the situation is likely to be a lot clearer. As far as whether she's notable right now . . . well, in the real world sense of the world, obviously she is; in the Wikipedia sense, it's a borderline case.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines: what was the name of that woman who wasn't involved with that general but there was something about her email and it caused a scandal? If you have to look it up I can rest my case... Drmies (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fame is not the same thing as notability. Without looking it up, who was the 7th man to walk on the Moon? (And nobody's proposing we delete the David Scott article.) If everybody knew all this stuff already, we wouldn't need an encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies et al. She would have to claim the national title (she didn't) or something else extraordinary to be notable. This article is of the opinion that Miss Alabama USA isn't even a particularly notable pageant when compared to the older Miss Alabama pageant. I like the way they sum it up. Altairisfar (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another beauty pageant winner who doesn't meet notability guidelines-63.141.199.99 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The subject is doubly notable, as pageant winner and for the BCS NCG, so 1E does not apply. She has now received national media coverage on at least three occasions -- for Miss Alabama, for Miss USA, and for the BCS NCG. The article at the time this nomination opened was little more than a stub, making her appear less notable than she is, for instance, not (at the time) mentioning that she also went on to finish in the Top 10 of the Miss USA competition, or just how extensive the media coverage of the BCS NCG incident was; Donald Trump has now also offered her a position as a Miss USA judge. This is an article which needs expansion and improvement, not deletion. Moreover, we have prior precedent: Webb is at least as notable as other Miss Alabama winners who have articles: Madeline Mitchell, Rebecca Moore, Haleigh Stidham, Jessica Tinney, Tara Gray, Paige Brooks, Candace Michelle Brown, etc. —Lowellian (reply) 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revisit in six months as per arguments above. Things should be clearer then. Mabalu (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lowellian UW Dawgs (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the double notability mentioned above. She would have been borderline notability before this incident, but now the notability is clear. StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been quiet on WP for a while, but several years ago I was on the forefront of developing and clarifying the notability standards at WP. The primary objective of having a notability standard for people is to prevent vanity spam, which would otherwise flood the project. I value WP as a reliable resource for information on many topics, especially people. Of course it is also paramount that we respect the privacy of living people as well. I was shocked to see this article proposed for deletion. I see plenty of references, she likely met the notability standard prior to the bowl game, and this does not appear to have a controversial aspect which contravenes her privacy or reputation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keepfor sailing across the verifiability and notability (per WP:PEOPLE) thresholds. Being named Miss Alabama USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" and all the recent coverage adds only to her fame, not her already-established notability. - Dravecky (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MarginalI think a reasonable argument has been made that she meets the notability requirements by a very narrow margin. Miss Alabama USA may be a well-known award, but there's two prongs to that test. It also needs to be a significant award. This is hardly significant any more than Miss Mongolia would be. Many of the winners of Miss Alabama have no pages. Looking at some who do, many look like vanity pages with no encyclopaedic relevance. Is Haleigh Stidham's interest in playing with yorkies notable? I think if we look there are plenty of pages that might be even less marginal. This article could easily become a section within 2013 BCS National Championship Game or A. J. McCarron or Brent Musburger until she becomes more notable on her own rights. The page isn't there because of her awards, but because of the controversy over what Musburger said. Her award might arguably count her by the letter of the rules, but the actual context behind the reason for the page is not the award, but the controversy. --AlanK (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- between her pageant title and the recent controversy, she satisfies WP:BIO. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: although, on the one hand, this discussion can be viewed as simply another display of debating points between deletionists (Rationale for deletion) and inclusionists (Arguments against deletion), on the other hand, it presents another opportunity to establish or enhance standards for inclusion of certain groups or classes of individuals acceptable as subjects of biographical entries. While it would have been somewhat more favorable for inclusion arguments had this Katherine Webb article been created before January 8, 2013, and not in response to the publicity cresting on that date, the fact that it was created because of the publicity, may be ultimately immaterial (the previously mentioned Jill Kelley article, created in response to the publicity regarding her role/involvement in the Petraeus scandal, was quickly nominated for deletion, deleted, immediately recreated and, following another discussion, retained). It's not even specifically a case of WP:Other Stuff Exists, although such consideration does play a major role. Furthermore, even though we have the Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends, containing, as of this writing, 116 names, one presumes these women have at least as much fame as Katherine Webb, and most of them, it may be argued, have little, if any notability. It may almost seem counterintuitive that she is being nominated for deletion because she attracted too much attention and publicity, while other "wives and girlfriends" are not "notable" enough to even rate a deletion discussion. Ultimately, if Wikipedia is already inclusive to such a degree as to contain an article on every cricket player, baseball player, hockey player, tennis player, baseball player, footballer and Olympic athlete who ever played for any major team or participated in any Olympic Games, and then there are wrestlers, actors, local politicians, etc, to the degree that winners of major statewide beauty pageants, who subsequently represent their respective states in nationally televised annual events, would seem to have at least as much claim to be subjects of articles. While this discussion is about an American pageant winner, any winners of equivalent beauty contests held in other countries or, for the purposes of English Wikipedia, at least those in the English-speaking world, would, needless to say, have equivalent standards for inclusion.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did not know Wikipedia is nothing more that a popularity contest now?

Like it or not As Ms Alabama & as the Alabama's QB's girl friend she is now famous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.253.177 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. She was quasi-famous as a pageant winner, is suddenly more famous as a result of the football game, and it was reported on the Sports Illustrated website last week that she's going to be in this year's swimsuit issue. She's already notable, and getting more notable all the time. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Traut

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

Notability presumably rests entirely on unsourced "youngest elected official" claim. Lareda Ranch Civic Council appears to be an advisory board with no powers. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. JeffreyAtW (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under A7 (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 22:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barth

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

I speedied this but it was undone by an IP on the grounds that a legitimate reason had been provided on the talk page. That reason is that the subject "was in an encyclopedia less detailed than Wikipedia", which I would argue is not a satisfactory reason to keep. Therefore, I'm bringing it here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (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 03:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of finite-difference time-___domain software

edit
List of finite-difference time-___domain software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not directory and not for random lists. List of warez which use a certain mathematical method is rather arbitrary, similar to List of songs about death. If a certain piece of software is notable, it mst have its own article or a section in the article about the math method. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the creation of a list-class software article around a mathematical method is a reasonable enterprise; there is no grounds for deletion based on current Wikipedia practice and guidelines. The real question is whether any of the mentioned software programs in the list have articles themselves on Wikipedia or satisfy notability guidelines. If not, it seems reasonable to pare the list down to a stub. Mark viking (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was presenting evidence that creating such a list around a mathematical method didn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines that I knew of. MOS:LIST indicates that such lists should be lists of existing Wikipedia articles. I agree that if few or none of the FDTD programs listed have associated Wikipedia articles, there is no point in creating or retaining the list-class article. Mark viking (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK is usually brought up when there is an issue of bias or undue weight. I'm curious--what do you see as the potential biases here? Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not coatrack in the strict sense, but rather a list of handy redlinks to create more articles about non-notable software. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No references discovered that would evidence notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God Temple

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

Poorly written, little context. No references for notability. Should be deleted moved to userspace. Skrelk (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Mahmood

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

This article seems inundated with a succession of hoaxes that describe the subject as a renowned medical practitioner, consultant, entrepreneur, commando, and specialist in education, all without any evidence for corroboration. Mephistophelian (contact) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost entirely unsourced (I removed some sources which did not mention the subject) and unremarkable. Borderline A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims that the subject is an "Online Associate Professor" at Mogadishu University. I tried to search the M.U. website, but it's un-navigable. Google, Google News, and Google News Archives searches for ("zahid mahmood" mogadishu), refined to ("zahid mahmood" mogadishu university associate), yield nothing suggestive of coverage, not even brief promotional notices by M.U.
The article also claims that the subject ran a company called First Choice Consultancy Ltd. Google, Google News, and Google News Archives searches for ("zahid mahmood" "first choice") produce no results that don't appear to be taken directly from this article: again, not even the kind of self-promotional stuff one would expect from a real-world company, let alone independent in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. An older version of the article, edited only by its creator, states that Mahmood's company was called Future Choice Consultancy. Google searches for ("zahid mahmood" "future choice") turn up a few links, none suggestive of in-depth independent coverage; following one link leads to this page, indicating that Future Choice Consultants Ltd was incorporated in February 2011 and dissolved a little over a year later. The article was created in September 2011 by an SPA with, I suspect, promotional intent.
In summary: I could find no evidence of notability. I couldn't confirm the article's claim re. the University of Mogadishu (and an online associate professorship wouldn't confer notability anyhow); the short life of Future Choice Consultants suggests that it won't confer notability on its founder. Easy delete decision. Ammodramus (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2013 (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 D3_Publisher. Not enough significant content to warrant its own article ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Family Party: 30 Great Games Outdoor Fun

edit
Wii Family Party: 30 Great Games Outdoor Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are many Wii games out there and this do not particularly stand out from the rest. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a list of games available in the main game. It gives no context or references. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games) as it's unsourced and lacks significant content (aside from a list of "games available", the only content present is the name of the publisher and the game's release date). Additionally, the infobox is short and incomplete, even lacking information present in the article itself. A quick search for sources shows me about 253,000 hits, the most visible of which are links to purchase the game and reviews by gaming websites. MJ94 (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to D3 Publisher - (@MJ94) You're more likely to receive good results using Google News and Google news archives which I have done where I received multiple links from the time near the game's release, two reviews here and here (one is negative and the other positive) and other links here (which reads like a republished press release but I can't find the exact origin), here, here (written with a promotional tone and I also suspected this may be a press release but I haven't found the original link, if it is PR), here and here (both press releases) and here (another news article). I liked the two reviews I provided at the beginning but there isn't much so redirecting to D3 Publisher may be a good option. A search at Google Books gave this (first result from the top) but it doesn't provide much through the small preview. It is also possible the game received good attention in Japan/Asia but, judging by all of these non-Asian links, I believe it should have received the same attention here. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted - incoherent article, blatant original research. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of The Universe is Wrong

edit
The Age of The Universe is Wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SNOW Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:43, 9 January 2013 (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 Aviation in New York City. MBisanz talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the New York City area

edit
List of airports in the New York City area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list article is an almost exact duplication of what already exists in List of airports in New York, List of airports in New Jersey, and List of airports in Connecticut, a combination of the three so to say. Unless you prefer merging all three articles, which I do not recommend considering how long this article would be if that were to happen, this article is completely useless. It also contains trivial and Fancruft information since very few people would be interested in what airports serve the "New York City area," and it is hard to understand exactly what "area" is it referring to The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Obviously it is not the case that this list simply combines the other 3 lists, since there is plenty of content in those lists that is not included here. It seems to me that someone looking for navigational assistance to airports that serve the "Tri-State (New York-New Jersey-Connecticut) metropolitan area" (an area defined precisely at New York metropolitan area) would find this list more useful than having to go to all 3 of the state lists and work out which airports relate to the NYC area and which ones don't. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What basis is the assertion that "very few people would be interested in what airports serve the 'New York City area'"? If someone wanted to visit the New York metropolitan area (specifically New York City, an internationally famous area), they would definitely want to know what airports serve that area, and would probably enter something like "airports in New York City" in the search box. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: My concern is that everything in here already exists in those articles and thus find it pointless for an article to have things that other articles already have, but if you really want to keep the information here, it can easily be added to New York metropolitan area#Major Airports, which is currently not that long. Also, we are not a travel guide, so if someone wants to "look for navigational assistance to airports that serve the Tri-State (New York-New Jersey-Connecticut) metropolitan area," he or she should consult travel websites, brochures, maps, etc. not Wikipedia. If someone wants to look for airports that serve New York City, the article List of airports in New York already has what they need. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are misunderstanding what was meant by "navigational assistance". I took it to mean navigation around Wikipedia, not navigation in the real world. As regards List of airports in New York, that is an article about New York State that includes airports that don't serve New York City and excludes those outside the state that do serve the city. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Claiming that "very few people would be interested" is a misrepresentation since nearly 8,000 people have viewed the article in the last 30 days. The tri-state NY metro area is the largest "market" in the United States Djflem (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or Reduce and rename shorten list and re-name Airports in the Port of New York and New Jersey, which along with other suggestion addresses nominator area concerns. Djflem (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 17:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nomination statement is very brief, citing only a policy, and several of the votes here (on either side) have similarly brief. However, from what I gather, the main complaint on the delete side is that the subject is notable only for an event that amounts to a news story. The keep side however has pointed out that the subject seems to have some coverage in a book as well. Each side has about even support, and since there are some sources listed there is no policy that mandates deletion here either. That will usually, as here, default to a no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kornievsky

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This news item, from the time of his forced return to the Soviet Union, goes some distance toward establishing notability and more or less confirms several of the facts in the article. However, we clearly need more than one reliable source. I am currently unable to trace the one Russian reference given in the article, though if it turns out to be both substantial and reliable, I think there would be weak but sufficient grounds for keeping the article. Otherwise, it would probably be a matter of (probably offline) sources from his period in the West (and with the added difficulty that transcriptions of Russian names in the 1950s and 1960s were less standardised than today) or from more recent Russian or Ukrainian sources. PWilkinson (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It looks to me as if his kidnapping by USSR was a notable incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you citing another Wikipedia policy if the "Non-notable per WP:BIO" rationale you attach to your frequent drive-by deletion tagging of biographies is sufficient? If it isn't "drive-by" then why the same boilerplate rationale and the failure to give me the courtesy of a reply when I have elsewhere objected? I suggest all of this nominator's deletion reviews be closed as default Keep unless and until the nominator starts quoting specific elements of WP:BIO or some other Wikipedia policy and explaining how they apply to the nominated article. Deletion nominators should be willing to put the same sort of effort into explaining why the contributions of others should be deleted that they demand of those others by initiating a deletion debate.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am citing another policy because it may be relevant and it is a reply to a new comment. Also, I see no reason to quote specific parts of WP:BIO because it is all relevant. And AfDs are not just about spouting policy or guidelines - it is about establishing consensus about individual articles. As for replying to your objections elsewhere I am afraid I am completely unaware of the discussion, or did not know how to reply, or maybe did not want to reply. Please let me know where this objection is posted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I found a comment on your talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "it is all relevant" isn't a cop out to dodge accountability for your tagging then how are you to be challenged on your interpretation of WP:BIO (or any other policy)? If you are interested in enabling the community to come to a consensus about whether your interpretation is correct then you would state just what it is that you are interpreting instead of giving the impression that you believe the rest of us ignorant of WP:BIO's existence. Respecting the reality of a dispute means acknowledging the expected disagreement of a veteran editor like myself instead of just advising me on my talk page that you wish to delete with a boilerplate reference to WP:BIO. I specifically responded to you regarding the applicability of WP:BIO on that article's deletion review page and the fact that you are "completely unaware" of the existence of a page you created (instead looking to my talk page) suggests that you are indeed more interested in obligating the editing community to respond to your deletion nominations than in advancing the reviews you initiate in a consensus building way. If "it is about establishing consensus about individual articles" then you would acknowledge that the starting point for any article is a consensus to keep given that it was created by at least one other editor in the first place. If you think the consensus is otherwise you should be able to produce some specific, contrary evidence. All this to say that the alternative to drive-by deletion reviews is to "clearly and concisely identify problems with Wikipedia pages to allow other editors to fix them." If it can't be fixed, fine, but that would mean actually doing some investigating yourself into whether a fix is available or not before concluding that there isn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not necessarily trust the standards of the ruWP in all fields to match ours, but I do accept them as likely to be better informed than we can do, with respect to Russian historical figures, including the Soviet period. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 31 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I google his name, all I get are wikipedia links. NickCT (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I also do not think Better Badges should be deleted. It is a very notable institution and the page is very interesting. It should even be enhanced with photos of products. It should not matter if Joly MacFie is the founder of the business and also the only editor, as he is the one who would know the most about the institution. For these reasons I urge that it not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCrulees (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berke Demircioğlu

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

Not yet notable per WP:BASEBALL/N, and a mostly unreferenced WP:BLP. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (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. Delete all ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Open

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

Article consists of only a list of results, and I wouldn't even know what sport if there weren't a navbox at the bottom. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, for similar reasons (identify as darts tournament, but not much else):

Colorado Open (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Czech Open (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swedish Open (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hong Kong Open (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Halifax Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkish Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gibraltar Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greek Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North Island Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Logical to delete these and a whole lot more (at least all of the category 2 and 3 events). The top prize money is only a couple of thousand dollars (you'd have to live long to win enough to prosper), and there are more question marks than actual information, and no references whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:23, 10 January 2013 (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 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ptp4l

edit
Ptp4l (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability, no external references. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found a number of primary sources for this program, all connected with the source code or distribution. But I have unfortunately been unable to find any secondary sources for this software. ptp4l is part of the Linux PTP project, which seems to be a bit more notable in the secondary sources; it may have been an unfortunate choice to base an article on the package name, rather than the encompassing project. The Linux PTP project is listed in the article List of PTP implementations, which links back to this article. Mark viking (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mark viking - I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.  Gong show 23:33, 10 January 2013 (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. Non notable company subtly advertising ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translitepc

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

Unreferenced; no claim of notability per WP:GNG; doesn't add anything that isn't on Lexan or polycarbonate; company isn't notable enough to merge per WP:PRODUCT; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous IP editor. Altered Walter (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Canuck89 (converse with me) 22:11, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as the one who originally PROD'd it, for the reasons listed above. InShaneee (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to be about one particular brand of UV-stabilized polycarbonate sheeting. I could find no secondary sources for "Translitepc"; There are many hits for "Translite", but none I found seemed to be about polycarbonate products. Without independent sources, the topic does not meet notability thresholds. However, I disagree with the nom that the Lexan or polycarbonate articles contain all that is in this article. In particular, UV-stabilized polycarbonate is not mentioned in these articles. Perhaps some generic subset of this article describing UV-stabilization could be merged into the polycarbonate article, if a suitable reference is available. Mark viking (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2013 (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Chittorgarh

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

Highly POV article, in my opinion beyond rescue. Half of the article consists of copyvio of www.sschittorgarh.com. I could not find a proper version in the history, so the application of WP:TNT seems the best option for this article. The Banner talk 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an institution with long history and rich traditions. Nothing that can not be fixed and article does not deserve deletion.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than likely that you are right with that, but in my opinion this article is beyond salvation. Starting all over again looks easier than trying to remove all copyvio and puffery. The Banner talk 20:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verified secondary school, and a government military school to boot. No article is unsalvageable. Just remove everything except the facts and you've got a perfectly acceptable article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please tell me what the last acceptable version is? The Banner talk 22:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mention an acceptable version. I simply said remove everything except the facts, even if that leaves only a paragraph (stubs being, of course, perfectly acceptable articles). AfD is primarily for deletion of articles on non-notable subjects, not poorly-written articles on notable subjects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Don't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion. This article has historical importance and significant coverage (here). If any portion needs to be rewritten, then it can be. But in any way this article does not deserve to be deleted. -- Som999 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: oppose WP:TNT. Delete unsourced sections or parts of sections like: "Organization Structure" "School Campus" --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To suggest that the article is WP:TNT is either totally irresponsible or sheer ignorance of how to build Wikipedia, or both, and demonstrates a total lack of engagement for Wikipedia by the nominator who not being a native speaker does not realise that part of the problem is that the article is written in traditional, flamboyant Indian English. This and the COPYVIOS can easily be cleaned up, and refs found for many of the notable alumni, for this article about a notable school system. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2013 (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. Ignoring all of the arguments regarding the veracity of the man's claims, in the space between the nomination and today, the article's subject has met the following critiera:

Notability of Creative Professionals - His contributions to the Nexus magazine, a notable and major publication aimed at a fringe audience, assert notability both within the "fortean community" and without. On this point he meets the criteria set out in point 2.

By point 4 of creative professionals, and point 1 of entertainers, his extensive work on Ancient Aliens also asserts notability.

As for general notability, the subject has authored multiple books (all but The Cryptogram of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Guide to an Enigmatic Village and Killing Kennedy: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination appearing to have been published by fringe but independent publishers, with some media coverage for all (though especially The Ancient Alien Question: A New Inquiry into the Existence, Evidence, and Influence of Ancient Visitors as it relates to his television career). The subject has also been cited as an expert in their field in publications by other authors and has been the subject of media attention with regards to the impact of his work.

(Though only a minor contributor to notability, his obituary on the extraordinarily notable and influential show, Coast to Coast, should make a modest impact on claims to the notability of the subject and their work) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Coppens (author)

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

Non-notable author. References cited include one obituary and his official website. No indication of importance and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He died on 30 December 2012, so a lack of obituaries is unsurprising at this point. The article was created today. It is too early to tell. There are ongoing discussions on WP:BLPN and WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure if he is "non-notable", I found lots of Wikipedia articles (even the Socrates article...) who is using his website (and etc?) as a source, you can see those articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Philip_Coppens_%28author%29 ... The Philip Coppens article was only created yesterday, I'm pretty sure with few more edits from other contributors, the article will be ok. --Hydao (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I decided to search for "Phillip Coppens" (double L, a mistake of course) and found two more Wiki articles that mention his name or website: Mona Island of the Druids and Chinese pyramids. In my opinion there are too many Wikipedia articles using his "stuff". Even if he is/was "non-notable" in real life, he must be a little bit special here on Wikipedia lol. --Hydao (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You need to show he meets WP:AUTHOR - so far there's no evidence for it. His use here could just show editors pushing him - and I think you are probably right, too many articles using him as a source in cases where he isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Isn't this sufficiently notable? (now I'm not even including all those Wikipedia articles that mention him/uses his website as a source)
      • "Philip Coppens is an author and investigative journalist, ranging from the world of politics to ancient history and mystery. He co-hosts The Spirit Revolution radio show with his wife Kathleen McGowan and is a frequent contributor to Nexus (magazine) and Atlantis Rising Magazine. Since 1995, he has lectured extensively and has appeared in a number of television and DVD documentaries, including Ancient Aliens: The Series (The History Channel). He is the author of 11 English-language books, including The Stone Puzzle of Rosslyn Chapel, The New Pyramid Age, Servants of the Grail, Killing Kennedy, The Cryptogram of Rennes-le-Château, The Ancient Alien Question and The Lost Civilization Enigma."
      • There are too many information and interviews, I need time to read it more carefully. Also, you said "His use here could just show editors pushing him", I'm not so sure about this "pushing" thing... Meanwhile I have to leave Wikipedia/Internet for now (real life heh), hope someone can improve the page decently in the coming hours/days. --Hydao (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - There are articles that should be deleted right after creation, but I don't think this is one of them. I would like to give it a month or two to see what improvements and sources are added. Right now it's a marginal keep IMO. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is extremely incomplete and inaccurate. He is Belgian, not American -- after he and Ms. McGowan were married, he was refused a visa to enter the United States (this from her Facebook page) because of a previous conviction for hacking another researcher's computer. Tenorlove (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)tenorlove[reply]
Your link to www.justenergyradio.com/ - a very minor fringe site - makes me lean towards delete. If that's the best you can do, he's not notable enough for us as he isn't meeting WP:AUTHOR. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the best I can do, it was just a random site that appeared on Google, as I said there are many sites, time is needed. --Hydao (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look folks, we have an editor who says that he needs some time to address these issues. I say give him and anyone else who wants to improve the article two or three months and then revisit this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks pretty dodgy to me. Any article that has such a paucity of references that it needs to quote a Facebook page as an external link is questionable, in my opinion. Of course, I might change my vote if it is shown that there are better sources. Deb (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, here's a review of one of his books from the website of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Link. As things currently sit, I'm not sure there's enough here to support an article, but there are at least some signs of notability, and given the recency of his death, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other RSes show up over the next couple of days. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that newspaper seems to be notable enough, so I suppose there's a case for him. I haven't changed my mind as yet though. Deb (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he is non-notable and "useless", then maybe all these links should be removed from Wikipedia I guess? I didn't read his books (will do in the future) but he appeared in all (or maybe 90%) Ancient Aliens episodes, he sure is notable on his area (Ancient astronauts, ETC). --Hydao (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His TV appearances should be mentioned in the article, as they would add to the argument for notability. Deb (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coming round to a Keep now. Deb (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but needs improvement - Prolific writer. Looks to have published several works and many articles, with one that was scheduled to be published this year. His obituary has yet to be published, and that usually reveals lots of bio details. So the materials are there for anyone willing or available to put time in expanding it. --Auric 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I do not know if he can be used as a reliable source for anything but pseudoscience, but in his field he is widely published. (While we are at it, someone should write the article on Jüri Lina.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Advocates of fringe theories can be notable, even if their theories are fringe. See Erich von Däniken. This author seems to have appeared on the History Channel numerous times and has written numerous (albeit wacky) books. Killing it the article just as it's being started seems like an over-broad approach to the problem of fringe-theory creep on the wiki. It's a genuine problem, but the solution is not to whitewash the existence of the advocates of these theories. I think User:Guy Macon, User:Deb, User: Auric and User: Petri Krohn have got the right approach. David in DC (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some recent attempts to fix the article have been reverted as copyright vios. If so (I haven't checked) sobeit. Hoever, the reversion edit summaries also say that repairs to the article should be done in the sandbox. That's nonsense, and seems almost designed to frustrate the editor trying to do the work to improve the article. The AfD template itself counsels that improvements can be made during the pendency of the AfD. David in DC (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that meant work on the copyvio in a sandbox. However, we don't allow that. We don't allow copyvio at all and I've reverted the latest addition. See also WP:Close paraphrase. I'm surprised no one has yet found sources for notability. I'd !vote keep if those were found. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) Science doesn't always proceed rationally. See Wiki article on Paul Feyerabend - "In his view, science would benefit most from a 'dose' of theoretical anarchism." (2) Although an alternative researcher, Coppens' work is well researched, well-written and widely published. He has proposed several original and potentially falsifiable theories. For both these reasons I would keep the page. Synuge (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Synuge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This is my first comment at Wikipedia, so apologies for any misunderstandings. The suggestion to delete this page, of an author I consider highly notable, reinforces the strong impression I have that Wikipedia is too influenced by people who are bigoted against new ideas. Vale Philip Coppens. Robert Tulip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.166.13 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — 180.200.166.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Just not seeing the multiple, independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage we would need to have in order to justify an article. Appearing on TV shows about fringe topics alone does not cut it. Self-publishing some books does not cut it. Editors here arguing that the article is new and thus should be kept while we wait for things to pan out have it exactly backward: it should be deleted now, and if sources to support an article ever appear *then* it can then be recreated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a lot of respect for some of the keep !voters, but so far none of them have come up with sources that meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR and the decision should be made on the basis of our criteria for notability on the article as it stands now. The very fact that none of them have been able to find sources is part of the reason that I've decided to !vote at all. As DreamGuy says, delete now per our guidelines with no prejudice for recreation later if sources are found. I realise that the delete !votes are outnumbered, but hopefully this decision will be made on the basis of our guidelines (and please, 'no consensus' shouldn't apply here as that would be - in my opinion, saying our guidelines can be broken on the hope that someone will someday provide sources. The reason AfDs take a week is to allow sources to be found. If they aren't being found, that suggests they may not be there. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So help me out here delete voters. A book review is a valid secondary source, correct? There are numerous book reviews available. If I start citing some of these will that help? Thanks Synuge (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Read WP:AUTHOR "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." But they'd have to be mainstream sources and in more detail than the Seattle review. I don't think his books can be seen as significant without discussion of them in mainstream sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seattle reviewI looked as this short review more closely. It seemed a bit strange that it accepted Coppens statements uncritically and then I noted it is from Blogcritics[2] - ok so far, but the author[3] has no qualifications to make such comments. And once you take away the title and author, you've got about 155 words. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have to agree with Dougweller. The basic problem is the continued absence of independent secondary sources giving biographical details, book reviews, etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: He is a non-notable author. Sources aren't reliable and independent! Samuel petan (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I second Doug and agree that it appears he doesn't meet GNG for Authors at this point. SarahStierch (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request This says he was buried on January 8th in LA. Please keep this open at least until the 15th. If no obits show up in genuinely reliable sources by then, I'll be persuaded he's not notable even though I think the History Channel appearances and numerous books make him notable in the dictionary sense of that word. Waddya say? David in DC (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment David in DC, part of the problem in this AfD is that people are using the dictionary sense of the word and ignoring our criteria for notability, which aren't the same as the dictionary sense. A large number of books doesn't show notability, it just shows an ability to write a lot and find a publisher. And it isn't as though he finds mainstream publishers either, as Hydao has just shown above with a link to another Adventure Press book. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get it. But, as Guy Macon said, some articles require deletion upon creation. I concur. Especially where BLP is involved. But this is a dead guy. He was buried yesterday. If there aren't sufficient obits from reliable sources within a week of his burial, I'll concede he's not wikinotable. I'm not arguing for the redifinition of WP:N. I'm just arguing that this guy seems a helluva lot more like Erik Von Dainiken than like your friendly neighborhood conspiracy nut. The Ancient Astronauts appearances and the number of books he put out suggest to me that there ARE wiki-reliable sources out there. I concede they're hard to find online. I imagine they'll be easier to find online in the week after he's been buried. It's not a BLP. There's no hurry. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with User:Mathsci's " absence of independent secondary sources" comment. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are a lot of problematic questions associated with this. I have been waiting and hoping for the article to be improved, but, despite the support above, no one seems to feel very moved to do much about this. A few points that trouble/interest me:
  1. It seems fairly clear he is not notable on the basis of his self-published books alone. Merely having your books reviewed doesn't convey notability. In fact, the small number of reviews quoted suggests the opposite.
  2. Although I have doubts about the reliability of Nexus magazine, it seems to be notable and to have a wide readership. Whether that makes Coppens notable depends largely on how long he has been writing for them and how many articles he has written. This is not clear from the article.
  3. His wife is notable, but I'm not sure how notable. Potentially this could convey a degree of notability on him, especially if the story of their marriage attracted media attention.
  4. His TV appearances could make him notable depending on how many episodes of "Ancient Aliens" he's appeared in and how big an audience they've had. Unfortunately no one has added any information about this to the article. Deb (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to keep arguments within Wikipedia's rules on notability instead of personal ideas. For example, his wife being notable would in no way argue for or against this article existing. It is a firmly established principle of notability rules here that notability is not inherited. At best, deciding that she's notable would mean you could maybe have info about him on *her* article, assuming it is notable enough to her life to be mentioned there and has reliable sources, *not* that a separate article makes sense. We don't create articles for the spouse (or any or every other relative) of every notable person who has an article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would cite Coleen Rooney as an example that tests that rule - read the intro to her article. However, I'm guessing that Ms McGowan in no way equals Mr Rooney in notability! Deb (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having 300,000 Facebook fans means only that he has a bunch of Facebook fans, not that he is notable enough to have his own article in an encyclopedia. Hell, it doesn't even mean he actually has that many fans, as a number of people pay for fake friends to make themselves look more popular than they really are. DreamGuy (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the Ancient Aliens series, not the person. I just hope that a "reliable" (erm...) source appears as soon as possible, I don't feel like wasting my time with this subject anymore. In my opinion he's notable enough to "deserve" a English Wiki page, hell, and I'm not even his fan. RIP. --Hydao (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable nut-cases should be covered by Wikipedia. I'm not convinced by the argument about lack of mainstream sources. He didn't move in the mainstream, he moved in the fringe world, so it is hardly surprising that obituaries appeared on lots of fan sites and not in the NYT. I don't see any good purpose that would be served by deleting his article. Zerotalk 03:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't mistake a lack of mainstream sources for a lack of reliable sources. Fan sites are certainly not neutral nor verifiable. This article should be deleted because it fails policy– no one's arguing that its deletion is a "good purpose." -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are the one making mistakes. First, nobody is suggesting that fan sites be used to provide materials for the article, so their neutrality or reliability is irrelevant. The fact that a large number of fan sites have posted obituaries of this person proves that in some circles he was notable. Second, WP:AUTHOR is a guideline, not a policy. There is definitely no policy requiring the deletion of this article. Zerotalk 04:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost all the argument for deletion so far has been on the basis of notability, so that's what I addressed. No proper case has been made on the basis of adequate source existence. If it is decided that the stuff he has done like publish books, appear on TV shows, and have his own radio show are sufficient evidence of notability, then finding reliable sources for those facts should not be a problem. For a start, library and publishers' catalogues are sufficient to establish the publication details of books. Zerotalk 07:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frequent contributor to popular television series Ancient Aliens. Has been the featured speaker at several public speaking events in North America and Europe. He is a notable person to many who do believe in Ancient Astronaut theory and deletion of his wikipedia entry amounts to silencing a proponent of a belief system. The simple fact that most of his work is considered to be "fringe" and "nut-job" by the mainstream is hardly cause for deletion. You will be hard pressed to find a "reliable" (since that would be coming from the mainstream) source given that his life's work was devoted to disproving the mainstream. Deletion would be no less than censorship. Ruiner(talk) 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)— 67.168.138.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Ancient Aliens Season 5 Episode 4, "Destination Orion" aired on Friday, January 11, 2012 on H2. The end of the episode wrote "In Memoriam Phillip Coppens 1971-2012." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.0.165 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 98.215.0.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • 12 January 17.30hrs GMT approx. Keep but make improvements. - Several good points here already. On top of which, mis-spellings and variants, particularly "Phillip" and "Filip" appear not to have been weighed-up sufficiently. It must also be considered that as a regular personality of the "Ancient Aliens" production, which only this week announced his death via their "in memoriam" there is likely to be far more chatter with regards to his death in the coming days (obituaries etc). Viewer-ship figures for the show also suggest a deep interest in this area which should not be dismissed so easily. Lest we forget, virtually all cosmology was in its day considered "fringe" which lets face it, in this day and age is more or less shorthand for "dismiss this it's bull". If this article gets deleted purely on the basis of his Science not being mainstream, will you then also delete everything on Astrology and Theology? - How about your article on Father Christmas? - While we know that he is a macroscopic quantum object, surely if a flesh and blood man can't have his biography kept after he is not around to defend himself, then surely you'll be deleting Father Christmas too? No? I say develop this article. It clearly was good enough when first proposed to put up. What's different now? Also, deleting is liable to encourage conspiracy theories far more and does no good for the transparency reputation of Wikipedia.

Further, is Wikipedia not known as the people's encyclopaedia? No-one who uses Wikipedia expects the Encyclopaedia Britannica, nor should they. As a people-built record for other people, Wikipedia ought to take more care over the individuals that are proposed as being important to its users. Having accepted this article in the first place, Wikipedia now has a duty to improve, not delete it. Regardless of the nature of the man's work. In fact, if we examine the thrust of Wikipedia's argument for a moment, then if Philip Coppens' biography is up for deletion on the basis of a decision as to the quality of his work, then why are the eleven separate Wikipedia lists relating to the exploits of the models of "Playboy" not under similar scrutiny? Surely their "work" is also, at best, "fringe". Wikipedia, if it wishes to ever be taken seriously, must treat every article equally rather than apply a selective and pretentious set of "standards" unevenly across those articles which its core team consider 'not interesting enough'. - I disagreed with much of the man's work, but I'd read anything of his work over that of a "Playmate" any day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) 15:00, January 12, 2013— 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Filip is his birth name, not a misspelling.--Auric talk 18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have ammended - thanks for the help! Good to know as one affected, that the Wikipedia community at least supports its aphasic users.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.143.233 (talk • contribs) 15:54, January 12, 2013
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things comes close to meeting WP:GNG. At all. Intrepid magazine is some online blog site with multiple unknown people contributing to it. It is not notable. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own, and doesn't qualify for one. You say it's in the print edition, but the homepage for the so-called magazine says it is digital only, so there is no print edition. I don't know if you were ignorant of that or trying to mislead people here. There are no independent reliable sources giving non trivial coverage to make it or Philip Coppens notable. I know people who want something to happen grasp at straws to try to justify it, but you aren't even coming close to something that meets Wikipedia criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a supporter of fringe science but the cemetery where he's buried is a valid source for Coppens' birth and death dates. He was interned at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale (which is notable, having it's own wikipedia article). They published his obituary which, even though is's hosted on tributes.com, you can find it from the Forest Lawn service search page.- ʈucoxn\talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Guy: Please review this page a little more carefully. One can hold a copy of the January issue in one's hand. If you scroll down just a wee bit from where you read, you'll find this:

CURRENT ISSUE: January 2013 This issue of Intrepid Mag is the FIRST EVER print issue. All subscribers received the issue digitally, but it is also available here to purchase as the COLLECTIBLE PARADIGM SYMPOSIUM 2012 Program Issue.

We disagree. In my view, the appearances on the History Channel series, the half-hour interview on KDKA (AM), and the Eulogy in the print edition of Intrepid Magazine make this a slam-dunk on WP:N. You think the opposite. But the choice you give our peers with the false dichotomy in this sentence "I don't know if you were ignorant of that or trying to mislead people here" stretch the bounds of civil debate to the breaking point. I may be wrong. I'm neither ignorant nor trying to mislead people. David in DC (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added ref to one book for which he was principal researcher and another to which he contributed a chapter: [6]. David in DC (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one surprised me: upon reading the article, I thought it'd be an easy "Keep" !vote, as pseudoscience with a following. However, a number of Google searches, using ("philip coppens" OR "filip coppens") with other keywords, including such as "debunk" and "skeptic" to see if I could find evidence that he'd been noticed by James Randi et al., turned up nothing but Coppens's own website and lots of blogs and the like: nothing suggestive of coverage by the mainstream media. Since there's been plenty of time for obituaries to run by now, I tried a Google News and Google News Archives search for ("philip coppens" "died"); this got me nothing. Since he died in L.A., I tried searching the L.A. Times website for (coppens); I got a single article, mentioning a fashion designer named Tim Coppens. Right now, I conclude that he fails WP:SIGCOV.
Some data that I wasn't able to find might sway my !vote. First, I wasn't able to come up with a paid circulation for Intrepid. If it's sufficiently large, I'd give more weight to his participation in their symposium. Second, all we have about Coppens and Ancient Aliens is a statement, sourced to IMDB, that he appeared in 16 episodes. We don't know how significant his role was in these: was he interviewed at length on several of them, or were these appearances nothing but passing mentions? If he can be documented as receiving significant air time, I'd be inclined to change to a "keep". Ammodramus (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos last post: https://www.facebook.com/giorgiotsoukalosfans/posts/10151334153392270 ... "As the consulting producer I was given the privilege to suggest potential experts in the field and I immediately threw Filip’s name into the ring." ... not sure if it can prove Coppens' "significant role". But well, I watched all the episodes, and all I can say is... yes, truly significant. --Hydao (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And also... sourced to IMDB, that he appeared in 16 episodes., I think it's incomplete. It is more than 16... --Hydao (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (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 Resh#Arabic rāʾ. MBisanz talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ݛ

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

No source can be found to verify that this symbol has been adopted by any official agency as the symbol of the Pakistani rupee. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 18:26, 9 January 2013 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Brody

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

An horrible unbroken slab of text. The only and very slender evidence of notability has been added by another user. I looked for copyvio but Google has not seen it elsewhere. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find to my horror that with this edit I had wiped out a lot of hard work by the originator. My humble apologies. I am almost inclined to withdraw this AfD but since the article suffered a speedy and restore, I think we had better discuss. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion the last section, Appearances in films and media, demonstrates in itself that he meets the GNG, so we don't need to parse whether his individual jobs meet any more specific standards; however, the UN positions are likely sufficient from that perspective, and he's all been over the news in multiple decades. There are sufficient citations to demonstrate notability, even though a few of them (his own publications and those of Human Rights Watch) don't help with that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Yngvadottir that this seems to meet GNG. While I'd like to see less reliance on only the Human Rights Watch reports, there seems to be a bunch of sources that are independent and reliable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (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. As a user page in your userspace, you don't need an AFD - just a request for deletion, which I'm taking this to be. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BrainDistrict GmbH

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

    No more need of this page Kalyan.allampalli (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2010 Pentagon shooting

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    2010 Pentagon shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable event, article seems to be a coatrack for the 'beliefs' section. TheLongTone (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One psychologically disturbed man pulls a gun, wings a couple of cops and gets killed? Very small potatoes, wherever it happened.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I base my reasoning on whether people treated the event as notable in their reactions to it. It means nothing to belittle the event itself. Even a paper cut could be notable if people were to treat it as such. Everyking (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was newsworthy at the time, but there's nothing recent. The event is covered in The Pentagon#Shooting incidents.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way weak? A minor crime, with the weak claim to notabiliy being that it happened near the Pentagon. And if the stuff about the perp is focussed, my name is Fresnel. Some claim to lasting notability has to be established.TheLongTone (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it established? This event has a two-line entry in the article on the Pentagon, which is what it merits.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No evidence of meeting GNG nor AUTHOR j⚛e deckertalk 01:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rochelle pinto

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

    Appears to fail WP:GNG. Seems to be promotional. A quick Google search in News etc did not throw up anything about her specifically, plenty of things she had written though. Mabalu (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Google News and Google News Archives searches for ("rochelle pinto") produce no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources. A Google Web search produces plenty of hits, but I don't find any indication of in-depth coverage. Style Diary of a Bollywood Diva is due to be released next month; if it sells well and/or gets lots of media attention, it's possible that Pinto might meet WP:GNG as co-author. For now, though, WP:TOSOON. Ammodramus (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2013 (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 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Caroline Jaden Stussi

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

    I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete working but non-notable actress. IMDB full on non-named (and thus presumably small) roles: reporter, nurse, [another] nurse (uncredited), friend at the beach, Angry Mom in Dentist Office, etc. It's rather telling that the article claims her "international attention" was for a role she didn't get, in the obscure Charlie Sheen movie Courage Mountain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 January 2013 (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 Greek life at the University of Georgia. MBisanz talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of the Greek Horsemen

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

    Non-notable college organization, with a single chapter. Fails WP:GNG, as all cites are to WP:SELFPUB or tangential coverage. GrapedApe (talk)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 9 January 2013 (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 Amoyamo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Amoyamo EP

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

    No signs of notability. ●Mehran Debate● 07:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 9 January 2013 (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 Lists of universities and colleges by country#Africa. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    List of universities in Africa

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

    This article is redundant. See the lists listed in Lists of universities and colleges by country#Africa Professorjohnas (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 9 January 2013 (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 Lists of universities and colleges by country#Americas. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 05:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    List of universities in South America

    edit
    List of universities in South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is redundant. See the lists listed in Lists of universities and colleges by country#Americas Professorjohnas (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:50, 9 January 2013 (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

    edit
    Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. The thing that would potentially make this encyclopedic is that there is some discussion of a correlation between height and electoral success, but the article and its sources explicitly state that said claims are bogus. What we're left with then is some detailed although silly statistical analysis and a few references to other sources talking about presidential candidate height. All of that adds up to make a trivial association that skirts original research and WP:SYNTH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe theory perhaps? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ("presidents of the united states" OR "us presidents") (height OR tall)
    on Google Scholar and you'll find lots of relevant stuff, for example [9][10][11][12]. If claims may be bogus we must be sure they are cited explicitly and are not presented in an unbalanced way. I think the article seems pretty good on this. Trivial? Well, there is a lot in the literature about the relationship between height and various measures of success in life and it is sourced commentary that WP seeks. The beginning of "Electoral success as a function of height" is unsourced and I think goes beyond being merely an introduction to the sourced claims that follow. Unless there is a source for the particular remarks I think they should be removed. "Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates" seems to me only to be using simple calculations. The "Statistical breakdown" does not use any statistical analytical technique and seems to be advancing a point without giving sources so it should probably be removed unless sources are provided. Otherwise, after pruning, an acceptable article. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that an article satisfying our general notability guideline isn't notable? Canuck89 (what's up?) 01:10, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why we have WP:NOT. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Misread that. No, I'm not saying that so much as saying that the question of notability is irrelevant here. Ask if it's in scope, then ask if it's notable. As I understand it, that's what WP:NOT is for. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how WP:NOTSTATSBOOK has any relevance at all. This is hardly a "long and sprawling list of statistics". And if it does, then it's self-evidently a poor descriptor of actual consensus in practice. We record the heights (and weights) of thousands of professional athletes, and yet policy would forbid a well-organized list about a topic of public interest that is covered in reliable sources? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a "long and sprawling list of statistics" to me. The comparison to athletes is less than apt, imho, as an athelete's stats are directly relevant to their careers/notability/whatever and while the article tries to make that connection, I am profoundly unconvinced that this is relevant in at all the same way. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:37, 16 January 2013 (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. I find a rough consensus to keep (as well as improve the content of) this list article, with the discussion touching on WP:LISTN, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are clearly some suggestions of renaming the article as well, but there's no resolution on that question here. j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    List of sexually active popes

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

    WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Note also that many of the sources used to construct the list are dubious by their very nature. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is laugh out loud funny. Maybe merge with main pope articles where applicable? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably delete I've not checked every pope, but looking at nine of them, in every case the allegation is repeated in the main article on the pope. I agree with PortlandOregon97217 that it's amusing, but also that it's probably not encyclopedic. One argument for keep is that it relates to Criticism of the Catholic Church#Criticism of Catholic actions in history where you could claim that Catholicism is flawed because many of its popes were hypocrites. There are other articles like Clerical celibacy where some of the info might be merged, but the fact that much of it is dubious rumor makes it problematic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The Catholic Church is very involved in matters of sex, so the hypocrisy of some of its supreme leaders is a legitimate (or is that illegitimate) issue. Pope Alexander VI is a particularly notorious example, being the father of Cesare and Lucretia Borgia. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question/comment. I kind of can't help but ask: isn't the idea of sexually active popes generally considered a notable one? I know that there are Popes that are rumored to have been sexually active, with some historical documents having been found that comment on whether the acts did or did not occur. What I guess I'm saying is that what we should be considering here isn't whether or not the claims are in fact true, but rather whether or not the allegations of sexually active Popes would be something that is documented and talked about in reliable sources. I'm going to say that barring a complete lack of sources, I'm leaning towards keeping this because the idea of it is something that has been covered in at least one History Channel show, if I'm not mistaken. I would recommend that if kept, the article be renamed to List of allegedly sexually active popes and some of the text in the article be rephrased to be less "this totally happened" and more "this was alleged to have happened by claimant so and so". I do think that this has merit as a list, especially considering that the concept of sex in the Church and of the Papacy specifically is something that's covered in various sources. However, I will try to find more sources before giving an official "keep" vote. I just want to specify that we're not really here to vote on whether or not these really happened or should be included in the articles, unless of course one of the claims is added with a "source" consisting of Bob Smith thinking that Pope John Paul II looked at a woman too long and that meant she was secretly his hidden mistress.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not trivia, and not OR or SYNTH either, given the existence of extensive writings on the subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A lot of things from early days have dubious sources - we'll have to lose a lot of saints, gods and mythical heroes if we insist on the same level of referencing as a BLP requires. I agree with Tokyogirl that 'alleged' should be in the title for the article, but would suggest that this title should be kept as a redirect. None of the subjects are likely to sue us, and nor are any of their descendants.... To my mind, this is a valid topic, and looks well done. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing my post accidentally deleted by the poster below. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete as horribly POV anti-celibacy tract. It throws together early popes from before the time when celibacy was established as a norm, wild youths who settled down, and three groups of allegedly sexually active clerics. And I stress "allegedly", because the reportage used as source material is often questioned by our sources: for instance, all four entries in the last group use the word "allegedly". I think we could possibly get away with List of popes accused of sexual peccadilloes or something like that, but throwing all of these five groups together is painfully biased, especially since only the last two groups stand accused of sexual activity while they held the office. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that those popes (particularly early church figures) who were previously married or sexually active when there was no requirement for celibacy, do not deserve to be in the same category as those who clearly violated celibacy rules, or who allegedly used prostitutes (Pope John XII), or were accused of incest (again Pope John XII). So Popes accused of adultery/fornication or Popes accused of violating their oaths of celibacy would be better articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article discusses context, though. This is precisely why a list is more prudent in this case than a category. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree that there is any inherent POV here, or that this is an "anti-celibacy tract". The list presents objective information from which readers can draw their own conclusions. On the one hand, the fact that there were early-era non-celibate popes who reigned honorably might be fuel for an argument that celibacy is unnecessary. On the other hand, given that the last pope mentioned here ruled in the 1500s, one might reasonably reach the conclusion that celibacy has worked as it was intended, at least for Popes, for more than 400 years. Neither of these conclusions (nor any other) is promoted or mandated by the list. In my opinion, a list limited to popes accused of one sort of sexual indiscretion or another is more likely to have POV controversies than does this one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the context of the activity discussed is well outside that of the modern, celibate papacy. It's like have a List of actors who have killed people: OK, John Wilkes Booth would surely be on the list, but so would Clark Gable and any number of actors who were soldiers or sailors or airmen. Only nine of those listed were actually alleged to have been sexually active as pope when they were supposed to be celibate. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The title doesn't mention whether they were supposed to be celibate or not. Personally, it doesn't worry me whether they did or didn't and I wonder if you aren't perhaps showing a bit of PoV. The list looks remarkable neutral to me, and actually shows far less naughtiness than I had expected. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean WP:NOONECARES? You linked to a small essay on (ironically) civility. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - if this is WP:OR, it's the best-cited OR in the encyclopedia. There is no serious doubt that many ostensibly wellbehaved popes in fact had mistresses and children, and the fact is significant both humanly and politically (I won't comment on any religious overtones). While of course there is some doubt in very ancient sources, gee, that's true of all historical documents. This is a well-constructed and intelligent article. Anyone reading it hoping for trivia and titivation will be seriously disappointed. A valuable part of Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the subject is widely covered in RS - whole books have been devoted to popes' sex lives, and the subject is highly notable both historically and regarding current Church affairs. Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but rename as suggested above to something like Popes accused of sexual misconduct. It's a great article and not really a list. Given the Catholic Church's obsessive interest in the sexual conduct of others it is only right that its own history be subject to this sort of analysis. In fairness the article should document when celibacy became a requirement (in case that excuses some of the article's subjects). For a policy-based argument, well it's not trivia, and its subjects are inherently notable, and it is all very well sourced. Mcewan (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with renaming with the term "sexual misconduct" in the title is that it insinuates that all of the contact was "bad". Not all of the sexual activity of the Popes could be termed as misconduct. Some of them were sexually active within the bounds of marriage, some of them were married while under Holy Orders, but some of those marriages were before celibacy was an absolute requirement. I do think that a list discussing the sexual history of the Popes would be good, but I think that labeling it "sexual misconduct" would be inappropriate when not all of this was actually misconduct. Especially since some of the acts were only alleged and not actually proven. That's why it's better to use a more neutral title and put alleged in the title. I found this in the past AfD and I think it's probably the best title so far: List of popes alleged to have been sexually active. It's neutral and leaves in the potential that some of the sexual activity listed in the article did not actually occur.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does not report allegations (see WP:NOT a rumor mill) and "alleged" is known here as a "word to avoid" (see WP:ALLEGE). I do not object to the existence of this article, but I object to the retention of allegations, even if they are labeled as allegations, when they are not well-substantiated by a reliable historical record. The historical record does not have to be neutral, per se, but it should be free of the motivation to spready calumny against the popes or the church. Let me give you a modern example. If the Huffington Post article says that a celebrity "was reportedly seen smoking marijuana" and that is added to Wikipedia with a citation, then I remove that as a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Even the HuffPo does not know if the allegation is true, because they said "reportedly". WP:BLP does not apply here to popes long-gone, but WP:RS does, so the article should be reduced to that which can be firmly supported by scholarly historical records. As for the title, perhaps a more WP:NPOV phrasing would be List of non-celibate popes. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically that's a matter for normal editing, not AfD. Clearly we should minimize the use of editorializing adjectives. As far as claims in ancient historical documents are concerned, we probably will never know whether they can be fully substantiated, so we just have to go on the evidence, and reporting it with "according to X" is correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, presidents don't run an organisation which claims to tell us how to behave morally and go to heaven, perhaps.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you meant this as an argument, but I wouldn't be surprised if one could find sufficient sources for such a topic. Interest in the topic likely soared in the late Clinton presidency, and is already discussed in reliable sources in the context of Kennedy. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, but you know quite well that being the head of a church is something rather different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been advanced for deletion thus far. WP:TRIVIA applies to lists of disconnected, miscellaneous, information within articles (not articles which are themselves lists). The subject of Popes accused of sexual improprieties has been extensively discussed in a variety of published works such as Sex Lives of the Popes and Vicars of Christ by Peter de Rosa, so WP:NOONECARES is not a convincing argument. I am also not convinced that WP:OR is a satisfactory reason for deletion. Many of the statements made in the article are already associated with WP:RS citations. Admittedly more citations are still needed and some specific statements may indeed be WP:OR, but these are surmountable problems that can be resolved by adding further references or deleting certain problematic assertions. However, I would support splitting the article, something along the lines of List of married popes and List of popes accused of sexual improprieties. For example, some of these popes lived in the 9th to 11th centuries, a time not noted for its wealth of reliable and objectively written historical documentation. It may be very difficult or impossible to provide a reliable source supporting the factual nature of an accusation, but we should be able to source the fact that an accusation was made. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The topic the popes' sexlife is notable, as it is written books about it. It is issues with the article, as the heading and the section "Background" is poorly sourced, and may contain original reaseach. NPOV is may also affected. This is, however, no reason to delete the article (WP:IDL), as it could be improved by ordinary editing. I find the use of a list ok, as the criterias for inclusion is used in the articles heading. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit Without even looking at content, the article was created 2004, and has been hit by many editors, so deletion is a longshot. It's also a valid topic (though StAnselm makes some good points above). However, there is obvious OR and bias. There are also editors trying to get away with pretty silly npov through implication: "however, it believes it does not undermine the Catholic doctrines considering...". Long paragraphs of text that are not listing "sexually active" popes don't belong here. All of that should be deleted or moved. This is a list, not an article, and it risks becoming a pov fork. Keep article, edit to delete/move non-list content. Openverse (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2013 (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 Liga Indonesia Third Division. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, so delete. No argument presented against redirect to Liga Indonesia Third Division, so that will be created following deletion. j⚛e deckertalk 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bandung Barat FC

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

    No indication of notability, club has not played in a national competition or received sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline. C679 08:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 10 January 2013 (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 Istanbul Province. The arguments for keeping the article are unconvincing. If Istanbul Province is not the most ideal redirect target, feel free to redirect it elsewhere. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Greater Istanbul

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

    The limits of city of Istanbul are the same as Istanbul Province. So there is nothing such as Great Istanbul.Rapsar (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or redirect, unless reliable sources have been provided showing that Greater Istanbul is an established notion different from Istanbul and the Istanbul Province.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Istanbul, or Delete. Previous versions of the Istanbul article stated that the «Istanbul Province has 39 districts (2009), of which 27 form the city proper of Istanbul, also called Greater Istanbul», also this article has been around since 2005 consisting of the very same sentence ever since, a clear sign it has not much of a chance of ever growing (possibly because nothing - much - distinguishes it from Istanbul), but also meaning it may be a useful link by now. - Nabla (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes İstanbul Municipality covers whole İstanbul Province. But please read the article. It doesn't refer to istanbul Province. It refers to a wider region around İstanbul (just like say Çukurova (Cilicia)). The article is a stub and the author doesn't give the limits of the region or the number of provinces included in the region. But the population 24 million seems to refer to whole of Thrace and most of north western Anatolia. I'll call the editor to be more specific. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gong show 06:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird enough, top of the search I get a google map of "Istanbul Dr., Adelaide, Australia"! :-) I still think redirect, but would not oppose keeping if anything other than "it is basically the same as Istanbul" shows up - Nabla (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2013 (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. Monty845 03:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Naina Ashwin Kumar

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

    Not notable, only one ref found in GHits/GNews/GBooks. Although the article claims a number of accomplishments, there are no reliable or verifiable sources. Extensive collection of YouTube links deleted per the external links policy. GregJackP Boomer! 03:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - notability ≠ popularity. You may not find sources in English. She is not a celebrity, I grant you that. But, she has been covered by TV news reports in telegu channel TV9 multiple times (source and source) and also TV5 (tentative claim). She has appeared in the news for her skills in table-tennis also (source). She is the youngest Asian to pass 10th exam when she was 8 years 3 months old(source). The Hindu reported about her. So I might be the lone voice here, but my vote goes to "keep". See this for more links to potential references.

      We might do well to watch out for FUTON bias, Publication bias and also language bias. Thank you, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gong show 06:32, 9 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kitwe International School

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

    This article about an international school appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage. According to an internet search, the school contains no reliable sources whatsoever and does not maintain an official website either. Another problem is this article is wrote like an advertisement, but that concern could be easily fixed. TBrandley 02:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it can be verified as existing and actually a school (that point looks doubtful, seems to be a tutoring college), then keep. WP:BIAS is going to cause issues with finding indications of notability, but schools are the centre of their communities and therefore notable from my perspective. Otherwise delete. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash [talk] 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Worth noting that the article creator responded to the AfD on their own Talk page here, citing its company business registration and adding "It is an education institution trying to reduce illiteracy and foster economic development through having an educated work force". AllyD (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as far as I can tell, the only mention of this school anywhere on Google is this Wikipedia article and mirrors. That means that even the most basic facts, up to and including its very existence, are unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All that I have found in various searches is this posting probably by the same author as the article, which is commenting on the subject's omission from a list. Nothing that can stand as a WP:RS or establish notability. AllyD (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - see AllyD comment above, I looked at that talk entry and the pacra.org.zm site it references (which is just a Zambian government department with no ref to individual companies). If the creator has the company registration number (which isn't easily searchable) that suggests a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problem.—Baldy Bill (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Majors (2nd nomination)

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

    Why the page should be deleted Timthomas22 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is absolutely not about a person who is notable.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't see any evidence of notability, and I don't know why there were so many "keep" !votes last time. I note there are 437 honorary citizens of Seoul - being only city based, I don't think this establishes notability in itself. But apart from that, Majors just seems to be an ordinary pastor. He was interviewed in The Seoul Times, but apparently that newspaper will publish "any wire story, press release or opinion piece from guest writers". StAnselm (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as not notable, fails GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 14:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because he is absolutely not notable, fails GNG. An ordinary, former pastoral. Even the "sources" are deceptive at best. TimThomas22 [User talk:TimThomas22|Boomer!]] 19:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. This is a style issue, really, not a deletion issue. The question should be worked out on the relevant MOS and project talk pages and any consensus can then be implemented editorially.  Sandstein  18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mont.

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

    Should be included in disambiguation page "mont" (without the period)--which I've already done, BTW, by copying Doprendek (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thoughts, it consistently gets a small number of page views, so a redirect to Mont is probably best. Stalwart111 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - no need for a separate page, but no harm in keeping as a redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment: I've read the comments posted subsequent to my original message concerning the botanical author abbreviation, and they haven't changed my view. It's true that some users who are specifically interested in botany will know that "Mont." with a full stop is supposed to mean something different than "Mont" without it, but we have to design disambiguation pages for all readers, the majority of whom won't have a clue that this is a distinction that makes any difference. The whole point of disambiguation pages is that the reader arrives there because they didn't know exactly how Wikipedia titles the article they are looking for, so combining likely variant search terms on a single page is more helpful. The botanical author abbreviation can, if necessary, be given more prominence on the combined Mont page than it currently enjoys. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as dab page or revert to redirect to the botanist: botanical author abbreviations, sometimes including full-stops, are a particular case. eg Mack. redirects to Kenneth Kent Mackenzie and not to the dab page at Mack. I don't know whether the abbreviation of the US state, with full stop, is notable enough to merit inclusion in a dab page, but I just checked the first parallel I could think of: Miss. redirects to Mississippi. It looks to me as if we have two specific uses of "Mont." which are probably both notable enough to be a redirect. As they coincide, we need this dab page. It might be useful to add a "See also" from this dab page to the dab page at Mont. PamD 15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further, Kan. and Mass. both redirect to US states rather than to the dab pages at Kan and Mass (disambiguation), so there seems ample precedent for US state abbreviations, with full stop, to go direct to the state article, just as there is for the botanical abbreviations with full stop to go direct to the botanical author, so this dab page is appropriate as the equivalent of two redirects for Mont.. PamD 09:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see exactly where you're coming from. But if Mont. redirects to Mont and in doing so retains its disambig value, does that present a big problem? What I mean is, if someone types in "Mont." for a specific reason, they will be directed to Mont where that to which they would otherwise have been directed is listed anyway. Just as if someone typed "Kan" (no full stop) instead of "Kan." (with). The disambig Kan still lists Kansas (as it should). Really, Kan. should go to Kan rather than straight to Kansas, in my opinion. It's a bit Ameri-pedia. Stalwart111 10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Cal. goes to Cal (disambig) and Wash. goes to Wash (disambig), rather than California and Washington (disambig anyway). Stalwart111 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The US state abbreviations are a distraction, really. There is a long-established international convention about specific abbreviations being used, in taxonomic descriptions, for specific botanical authors. See List of botanists by author abbreviation (G–O). It is much more useful for a reader looking for Mont. to be directed to Camille Montagne, either by a redirect or by a small dab page including only Montana, than for the redirect to go to Mont, where the botanist would be liable to be deleted by a well-meaning editor who couldn't see why they are there, and the reader would struggle to find the botanist among people whose unabbreviated surname is "Mont". So either we revert to the redirect to Montaigne, abandoning the Montana redirect, or we keep this dab page as is. To delete it and redirect to Mont would be positively unhelpful. I'm not a botanist, just a generalist retired-librarian wikipedian, but I will drop a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants where the botanists hang out to invite experts to chip in. PamD 13:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Yeah, if they have a particular take on this then by all means, they should be asked to chime in. I'm just not sure that many people are going to type in "Mont." looking for a particular individual rather than one of the other things "Mont." might abbreviate. But a, Mont. redirects here, for other.. -type note could resolve that. I suppose this all comes down to what people think would best serve WP readers. Stalwart111 14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as dab. Author abbreviations are extremely useful when writing articles. Authorities are an integral part of species names, and importantly so. But almost no one cites the full name of the author - they just go with abbreviations, and these abbreviations exist in (somewhat) standardised forms. While most people know that L. is Linnaeus, far fewer people would know to whom Mont. or Aubl. or Roem. refer. And it's not the easiest thing to find - you can query the IPNI database, you can search List of botanists by author abbreviation...but if you're writing an article that includes a couple dozen synonyms, each with their own author, it's a huge time saver to be able to simply throw up the square brackets and use page preview to figure out who the author is. When you're faced with a long dab page, it forces you to scan the page, possibly look at a couple candidate articles, before figuring out the right one. It can be a substantial time cost...and like most people, my time for Wikipedia is fairly limited. So speaking an an editor, I would strongly support keeping pages like this one.

      As for the redirect - I doubt that many people looking for Mont are going to type Mont. A few, yes, but adding the full stop generally requires conscious action. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, yeah, but in this case there is a very real possibility the reader is looking for something other than that author, including any of the things currently listed at Mont - especially (but not limited to) Montana where that specific punctuation is more commonly used. But we really shouldn't have two disambig pages for the same text, based entirely on a single full-stop. If that was the only thing potentially represented by "Mont." then, no worries, but there's a whole list at Mont and I don't think it serves anyone to separate one or two out on the basis of an industry-specific shorthand. Stalwart111 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your "very real possibility": no-one will add a full stop unless they intend it, and no-one seeking one of the other entries at Mont would include the full stop in their search or their link. The botanist and perhaps the state are the only two uses of "Mont.", and there is well-established practice of linking those botanical abbreviations, with full stop, to the botanists concerned - just check any of those in the list. PamD 22:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but most of those do not require any disambiguation at all. Take the two mentioned above: Aubl. might be a useful redirect but it does not conflict with anything at Aubl (the unpunctuated version goes to the same article). Likewise Roem. and Roem (though when typed, that goes to ROEM and redirects to an article about a radar array). For fun, I just created Finl. which doesn't conflict with anything at Finl. Stalwart111 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Mont as there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia in having parallel dab pages when one will do. The entry for Montana is already on the target dab page so it will entail adding exactly one entry to a dab page that is far from overloaded. Nobody will be inconvenienced and some people may benefit by not having to view two dab pages to view the article they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Really, thanks for telling me I'm nobody, that content creators are nobody. Here's a partial synonymy of Roupala montana, in the taxobox (I think it's about half). All of those authorities should be linked, when I have the time. Being able to throw square brackets around those names and find the links really makes a huge difference. If it goes to a short dab page, like this one, it increases the work, but it's likely that I can see the entire page through the pop-up tool I use (lupin's, I think??). If I have to search through a long dab page, well, that increases the work, and the time, and the frustration, immensely. So the more moves people choose to make like this one, the harder it is to actually create content. Why the hell people insist on "fixing" things in ways that make editing harder, that improve readability trivially-if-at-all, I'll never know. But I realise that content creation runs a distant second to consistency in this site and, after all, it's not like we're here to write an encyclopaedia or anything... Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I appologise that I have offended you, but that comment was written before you or anyone else had expressed any reasons why two dab pages would have any benefit over one. Most of my work on Wikipedia is related to helping readers find the content they are looking for, and so I naturally approach things from the perspective of a reader rather than an editor and my view is firmly that what benefits a reader is of greater importance than things that are convenient for an editor. I use Lupin's popups myself, and a test of less than a minute shows that in this case the entire dab page is visible in the preview without even having to click a "more" link, so you will not actually be inconvenienced at all. I have tried googling to see what uses in the real world "mont." actually gets, but almost all I get (even without personalised results) is Mont Blanc and Mont Orgueil. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's because Google ignores punctuation in searches. So it's all the more important that Wikipedia provides a more sophisticated search system where "Mont." leads to the botanist! It's not just editors, the reader of a botanical article might want to check which botanist the taxonomic name was attributed to. PamD 08:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wants to know who the botanist is, they will follow the link to the botanists article as now. Whether Mont. is a disambiguation page with two entries, or a redirect to a disambiguation page with more entries is irrelevant to this usage as links in the articles should not lead to either. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, as there's now a dab page at Mont. there should be no incoming links. It was previously quite OK for there to be links to Mont., aimed at the botanist. The editor creating that dab page over an existing redirect should, as per the "Move" instructions, have followed up any existing "Mont." links intended for the botanist and piped them to the botanist (or any for Montana, for that matter). In other cases, like Mack., where there is no conflicting abbreviation, it's perfectly OK for there to be links to that redirect - see example at Kobresia simpliciuscula where we see "(Wahlenb.) Mack.". PamD 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It should not be a section redirect as the US state and the botanist will be in different sections of the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not have a section titled ===Mont.=== with a section redirect there? The page is short enough that it will be clear to see. bd2412 T 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's contrary to how disambiguation pages are organised on Wikipedia and would mean duplicating the link to Montana and anything else rendered as "Mont" and "Mont.". It would also serve to lengthen the disambiguation page, which is precisely what Guettarda is arguing against. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If anything this disambiguation page draws attention to how any link made to it needs disambiguation, which a redirect (being an automatic blue link) won't do, causing people to just assume the link goes to the relevant page. Circéus (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh? Disambiguation pages are blue links just as much as redirects to disambiguation pages are. Links to both are shown in the whatlinkshere and (AIUI) are treated equally by various disambiguation tools (if they aren't then the tool really needs to be fixed to do so). Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Thryduulf. For most editors, disambiguation links and disambiguation redirects show up as blue links. For editors using a skin that calls out disambig links, it does so whether the link is a direct link or a redirect to a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 17:40, 13 January 2013 (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Racism in France

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

    Very POV, and poor quality. RH - (rosscoolguy) (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (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. I find a rough consensus the article meets WP:GNG in its improved form. j⚛e deckertalk 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Acts 29 Network

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Acts 29 Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Same reason as when it was voted to be deleted in 2006. Non-notable "church planting network", doesn't assert notability, doesn't even explain what "church planting" is. Categorized as a church even though they aren't one. Fails WP:CORP regardless. Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep: This is a pure rehashing of the reasons for deletion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acts 29 Network (Non-notable "church planting network", doesn't assert notability, doesn't even explain what "church planting" is. Categorized as a church even though they aren't one. Fails WP:CORP regardless) without a careful reading of the existing article. As the article re-creator, I am well aware of notability guidelines. The article doesn't need to explain what "Church planting" is - that's why we have wikilinks. The assertion of notability comes from the fact that there are are 400 churches in the network, but - more importantly - the significant coverage in independent sources. These are clearly cited in the article - I fear the nominator has not carefully read the article. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not notable, fails GNG and SNG. Sources listed are predominantly self-published. Two are dead links, one mentions Acts 29 in passing, and there is only one, maybe two that discuss it at any length. Other than sources that are tied to, not independent of, or published by the subject of the article, there is no RS to support the number of churches in the network. GregJackP Boomer! 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It also doesn't bode well when an IP removes the AfD tag. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think this version is substantially similar to the previous version? StAnselm (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that two independent sources that discuss it at length is exactly what is needed to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which two? Henard doesn't discuss it in depth. Palmeri is even shallower, presenting 7 bullet points on why the Mo. Baptists should not participate with Acts 29. Refs 2, 3, 8, & 9 are self-published and useless. Challies is a blog, and not a RS. Jackson's link doesn't bring up an article on Act 29, but when you search for and find the article, it mentions Acts 29 in passing, in reference to a speaker that they scheduled. The Village Church site doesn't refer to Acts 29. Christ the King gives a page not found error. None of that meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seltzer works as a RS, put out by a known publisher and in depth. 109.org is a student journalism project, which are generally not considered to be a RS. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I decline at speedy tag placed on the article for deletion as a re-creation. The article is not substantially the same as in was in 2006, when it had no independent sources whatsoever. This is not a comment on the current acceptability of the article one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have added another independent source backing up the claim of 400 churches: [15]. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2013 (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) 00:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Every source is a church link or church news website or blog or affiliated with the subject. There are no sources here through a major news outlet, semi-major or even a local town. Maybe some of the info could be merged into the article of its founder or the sponsoring church (Mars Hill). Basileias (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Still Delete - I agree with Basileias.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 16 new sources on Talk:Acts 29 Network. The 4 books are rather not independent as you define it, however, newsorg sources include USA Today, various metropolitan papers, a college campus paper, and brief mention in the New York Times. Still delete? ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not true. References 2 and 4 are neither church links, church news websites, blogs, or affiliated sources. But why would you exclude church news websites? They can still be reliable sources independent of the subject. In particular, Associated Baptist Press is a notable news service. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    References 2 and 4 are both book references, but all these sources are church and christian based and have a vested interest in the promotion of this. Ministry's have never been an encyclopedic topic. They might slip into Wikipedia, but any more serious encyclopedia...not even close. Basileias (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately someone does not have a good nose for humor...lol. That huffingtonpost post source, and that is about the best source yet talks about the deceptive practices of this group and closes by stating "I'm all for congregational and denominational change. But when it's the same old white guys preaching largely the same old agenda, it smacks more of a desperate power grab than a genuine longing to better know and connect with the world around us." Yeah, you found a good one. Basileias (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also added criticism from within the Southern Baptist Convention. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_January_9&oldid=1234122066"