Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Siegel

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

Just a small town mayor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS to indicate any notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Non-notable. Yintan 12:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted by Lectonar under criterion A7, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 11 July 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

118th Avenue massage parlour

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

Minor news event. Significant BLP considerations as well. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This event is not minor. It was covered by all of Canada's top news sources: The Globe and Mail, CTV News, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Any BLP considerations can be addressed through regular editing. Neelix (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News of no lasting impact. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with nom and with Clarityfiend. This is a local news item of passing interest. Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overwritten/overcited and UNDUE on a minor and only proposed massage parlour is not what this encyclopedia is for. Not a newspaper. There are also BLP issues re the protagonist here, IMO. And media tub-thumping on a local licensing issue is POV by nature, and also UNDUE by definition.Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. --do ncr am 06:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and all above. Ansh666 06:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Although the event received some national coverage, it is not an enduring event compared to others receiving national coverage such as floods and train disasters that are notable. Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slow news day local news hyped to the national news level solely because "holy crap massage parlor they do 'things' in there". Didn't even get beyond the planning stages. So it was covered by national news sources; said national news sources seemed to only take it to either fill time or empty column space or get in some Edmonton coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews; they love this kind of thing over there, if I understand rightly. Delete if that's not an option. We can always restore it if books, non-newsy government websites, or academic journals start talking about it, or if news sources start referring to it in the past tense (i.e. as a matter of reference, not as something that news junkies need to know), but right now I see nothing like that. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews per above. Although it did receive a certain amount of coverage, it doesn't really deserve its own article. The subject of the article wasn't even a real massage parlour; it was only ever a proposal. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, insignificant local news. I don't think even wikinews would want this one. -Wine Guy~Talk 00:16, 18 July 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) TBrandley (T • C • B) 07:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jase Robertson

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

Not separately notable from Duck Dynasty. Reliable sourcing is all tied to the show. WP:BLP1E. Redirects twice undone by author. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very famous. Surprised to find this here. He's involved in many projects apart from the show. And even if he wasn't starring on a hugely popular series would be enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other projects? All I see for him is Duck Dynasty. Also, only one show isn't necessarily enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's a big celebrity. The show is in its third season. And apparently there was an earlier version of the show before that. The article will not be deleted. Trust me. This is a hugely popular show and he is one of its stars. And like other tv stars he has all kinds of side projects. Here's a bit about him, but the value seems dated. The business is also notable. And I am SHOCKED that Phil Robertson (a redirect), its founder and a true legend doesn't have his own article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's really no reason for a deletion discussion. There could be an argument made to redirect to the parent subject, but in this case an independent article is robustly warranted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, if some other editor stubbornly refuses to let the redirect stand, and if another editor (myself) believes that he's a WP:BLP1E. What has he done that's not Duck Dynasty? I'm still not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oodles of very substantial coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Candleabracadabra, I find you to be right. By the way, I plan to create an article for Phil, as well as Si, Kay, and the rest of the Duckaholics (I did create one for Willie Robertson. I also think that the article Duck Commander needs badly to be expanded. As a response to you, User:TenPoundHammer, Jase Robertson is Involved with much more than Duck Dynasty. He is a preacher, professional hunter, COO, as well as inventor, charity worker, etc, etc. He does loads apart from the show. Carwile2 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. WP:BLP1E only applies if "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and starring in multiple seasons of one of America's highest rated cable shows is by no means a "single event". In addition, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" and Robertson is anything but low-profile. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". And, as it happens, I need a new duck call since I lost the reed from my current one. I shall invest in a "triple threat" and think of Wikipedia when I blow it. Warden (talk) 07:10, 10 July 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of teenage parents

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

Total waste of server space, and I do not see how it is even remotely encyclopedic. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A ridiculous article. Teenage pregnancy simply isn't notable - it was almost the norm in many societies until recently, and may still be so in parts of sub-Saharan Africa for instance. No chance whatsoever of ever being complete, and completely irrelevant to the notability of almost all it could include - which makes it a violation of WP:BLP policy from the outset. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete To say "ridiculous" is an understatement. Andy covers some of the major reasons (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Teenage pregnancy is notable, but the list was a trivial, WP:BLP-violation mess that has also been removed from the Teenage pregnancy article twice (including once by me; see here and/or here for backstory with regard to my removal). And titling it "List of teenage parents," without the word famous that was included in the title before, leaves the door open for this article to include any non-notable teenage parent that was reported in the news. Sure, the lead currently specifies that the list is "a partial list of historical figures and modern celebrities who became parents before the age of 20," but that can be easily reworded or removed to widen the scope of the list. Also, the talk page should be kept this time if the article is deleted; it assists the record of the article having been deleted and serves as a record for past discussion about that article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete for all the reasons given above: even if limited to the "famous" it is still an attractive nuisance for BLP violations, and in any case it isn't historically notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this BLP train wreck. Zad68 23:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per AndyTheGrump. Way too inclusive a criterion for historical figures. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and BLP concerns. Ansh666 06:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyTheGrump and other arguments outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP. I hate lists that seem to exist solely to shame the subjects upon it, and this is one of them. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP grounds. みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:50, 11 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fawcett

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

No evidence for notability--not a single one of the publications is even in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all notable. St Anselm (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in reliable indpendent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, even within his field of endeavour. NealeFamily (talk) 20:10, 15 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Programming Network

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

This was accepted at AfC , but I see no real indication of significance, and no references showing notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alot of WP:B2B talk which reads as alot of 'we will', 'we have', 'this will happen' and a whole lot of buzzspeak designed to get easy Google hits. Not much notable to be found on them. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Article about a startup raising capital is just run of teh mill busines news reporting. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. I could not find any coverage at all about this company, or investment group, or whatever it is. (I read the article three times and I still don't understand what it does.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage outside of a Business week press release, no real indication of importance, borderline CSD A7 if I'm honest. It seems to be a trait of non notable startups trumpeting loudly about their latest investment round, which doesn't mean anything, as all startups, or at least the ones that don't go out of business, do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 16 July 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. Secret ^account 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess

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

List full of original research and there is not any notability. Since quite a few people have beaten him, there's nothing really extremely special here. Beerest355 Talk 21:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this list do you think is unverifiable? postdlf (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, original research wasn't the term I meant to use here. It's more of the fact that we can't be sure that every single person here has beaten Garry Kasparov, and even then, there's no real notability to a list of people who have beaten him. It's not as if this is an incredibly rare feat as it seems a good amount of people have beaten him. Beerest355 Talk 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not quite "list of teams who have beaten the New York Yankees", but the message mostly is that beating the top-ranked chess player isn't terribly remarkable. I also would question the verifiability of the list. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Yankees have lost to every team in the American League and several in the National League, and that is from a small set. Only a tiny fraction of all chess players have beaten Kasparov. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the best lose occasionally. They lose before they become #1, during their reign (unless you're Rocky Marciano or a few others), and afterward. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given above. There are others too (e.g. Fischer?). These kind of lists get used for Bacon numbers and not a lot else - i.e. "I beat someone who beat someone who beat Kasparov". Hardly a good enough reason for an article in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Out of curiosity, do you think List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess should be deleted as well? I'm not neutral on that particular question as I put a fair amount of time into that article, providing references and some descriptive text to go along with the names. (I did the majority of that work as an anon in October 2006, but some later as well. The article could be improved quite a bit, and if I were doing it today I would use inline cites for Mednis and probably cite Wade & O'Connell as well.) In Fischer's case of course there is a book devoted exclusively to discussing all of his tournament losses, so that could be seen as different than the situation with Kasparov. I think potentially this article could look more like the Bobby Fischer losses page and even have better sourcing, but of course that won't happen if it is deleted. Quale (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the "unverifiable" claim. One just needs to visit a good on-line chess database such as chessgames.com and search for Kasparov's losses.

Also, besides this page, there are also the pages List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess, List of people who have beaten Alexander Alekhine in chess, List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess, List of people who have beaten Emanuel Lasker in chess and List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such a list cannot be verifiably exhaustive. Did a friend beat him when he was little, for example? Same goes for the rest of the "List of people who have beaten XYZ in chess" articles. All fail WP:LISTN, as well. I suggest bundling them. Ansh666 06:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're wrong about verifiability. All tournament games of the major chess players are available, and the lists say nothing about off-hand games. A book has been written exclusively devoted to Bobby Fischer's tournament losses. Did you actually read List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess, or are you just basing this on what you think you know about the subject? Quale (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the title, who said this had to be about tournament losses? Ansh666 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What has the title got to do with it? I expect the lead of a list article to explain the criteria used for the list items, and the lead can be improved if necessary. If the title needs to be made more clear you should try WP:RM instead. Quale (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Remember that the title and lead have to be clear to someone who doesn't have knowledge on the subject (like me). Moving them all to "List of people who have beaten XYZ in a chess tournament" would clarify this, but I'm still not sure about WP:LISTN for all, with the possible exception of Fischer. chessgames.com IMO is more of a primary source. It also seems to fall somewhat afoul of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Ansh666 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:LISTN is not an exclusive gateway for lists. It could also be potentially justified per WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list of notable people by a significant shared fact (if having beaten Kasparov is such a fact, I don't know), or as an informational list in furtherance of covering Kasparov himself and WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE concerns. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Chessgames.com is a primary source here? It isn't. It publishes chess games, instead of creating them. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "database of historical chess games combined with discussion forums" - does it discuss these losses at length as a set, with editorial oversight? Ansh666 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and prune) in Garry Kasparov main article. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Weak keep - Sjakkalle found there is a book about the subject, so there is some claim for the subject to be notable. I would prefer however to have it as a list of lost games, which is probably more interesting and close to sources than the people.-- cyclopia^speak! 11:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not original research, and indeed a study of Kasparov's losses has been the subject of an entire book, How to beat Garry Kasparov [1] that collected all of his losses. Concerning the scope of the list, it is quite OK to limit it to a fixed criterion (e.g. after Kasparov became a GM or after Kasparov became World Champion) and to impose the limit that they must be tournament games. Games databases such as ChessBase and the like are exhaustive for tournament games between top players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Will change my !vote accordingly. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the same situation as with the Fischer book (which not a surprise, as one is surely modelled on the other): this is a book about the games and about Kasparov's failure to play well at times, not so much about the particular people who beat him. Here's the blurb from Amazon: "Even Kasparov is human. This book analyses all of his major lost games up to 1990 and tries to draw common conclusions about how to defeat the very greatest." It seems that here, as with the Fischer book, the part of the book that they felt was important is being ignored. Also, it is easy enough to find columns and on occasion even booklets about individual games. Does that mean that any game that has ever been written up is notable? Does it mean that every match played by Kasparov or Fischer is notable? Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the individual games need to merit their own separate articles? I don't know how that's a useful question here. postdlf (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question I didn't ask. My point is that there doesn't seem to be much of a limit as to what is written up about chess matches. Back in my chess-playing childhood there was a regular column in the Wash. Post, among many other publications. So: do these write-ups make each of these games notable?

Let me put the problem another way: these books all admit that it's common for the top people to be beaten, and they are very interested in how people manage to beat them. The fact of all these defeats, however, makes it less than remarkable that specific people beat them. In Fischer's case the statistics were that people playing at his level had about a fifty-fifty chance of losing outright and about a one-in-five chance beating him; but surely a number of these people played him more than once, and beat him on on occasion and lost on another, and maybe played to a draw on a third. The genre of books seems consistently to be interested in the analysis of Fischer's or Kasparov's or whomever's weaknesses, and that's exactly what the articles here are not interested in. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking if "each of these games" is "notable" is asking whether the games each merit their own separate article, because that's what notable means here. Did you mean to use another word other than notable each of the times you've used it? postdlf (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too highly detailed information for a general encyclopedia per IINFO. It might be better to highlight the more notable losses (in matches that themselves were notable) than to list all who defeated him. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons I mentioned at the Fischer one. Not all of Kasporov's defeats are notable; the important ones he had to people should be mentioned at his article and the ones he had to computers should be mentioned at the article on those computers p b p 15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and WP:N isn't an issue here. Given that nearly all of the folks listed are blue links and given the sourcing including a book dedicated to his losses, I don't see a problem. I'm not seeing a lot of policy-based arguments other than IINFO. And I just don't see how that applies. "...provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." seems easily met. (This is a cut-and-paste comment from another AfD but the same situation is here as well). Probably would be best to be sure these AfDs that have similar sourcing (nearly identical really) close the same way. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. This list is (barely) notable, Tazerdadog (talk) 05:46, 16 July 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. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Bentancourt

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non notable youth player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and GiantSnowman. Finnegas (talk) 15:38, 14 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SaveFace

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

This article serves purely to promote a non-notable utility. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOTAble according to CBS News and IT Pro. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CBS link to establish notability is dead; more damning is that the link to the actual utility is also dead. This was not a novel program, nor did it establish any cachet in the Facebook community. I'm perfectly comfortable with deletion. RyanGrant (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 July 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, czar · · 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete one reference by CBS does not notable software make. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it is actually promotioal,but a software like this should not have its own article.It is only worth memtioning in Untangle.L smll 07:41, 11 July 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. L Faraone 00:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DaVinci (software)

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

Not notable, as far as I can tell, some irrelevant content Yulutngu (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 24. Snotbot t • c » 20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There do seem to be sources, they just don't appear to be reliable sources: blogs, forums, etc. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 24 June 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, czar · · 03:52, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:53, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5th Man Down (band)

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

I'm replacing a prod with an actual AfD. The article is sourced to certain music news websites. I'm not sure if those sources are actually reliable. If they are not, this article fails our notability standards for music. w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (edited w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:09, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage appears limited to blogs, social networking sites, and a couple mentions in local publications. I'm not finding enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 16:45, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gongshow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 12 July 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 Doug Anderson (singer). --BDD (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamin' Wide Awake

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and PROD contested without reason. Uberaccount (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should Merge this to Doug Anderson. EditorE (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS as it has not been covered in reliable sources. STATic message me! 19:47, 26 June 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, L Faraone 04:51, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doug Anderson (singer). Just a track listing, nothing really to merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 9 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Paul Cummins

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

Fails notability by a long shot. Dster (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 9. Snotbot t • c » 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Even by the standards of this sort of thing, this is bad. The first several pages of google searching are either booksellers or social networking; GBooks gives essentially nothing that he didn't write himself. I find exactly nothing third party. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete First, this is obvious self-promotion. Second, the author has included a number of simple fallacies set as truths in order to preclude an argument (in his World View section). He appears to be trolling climate scientists, geologists, and biologists who study the effects of climate change on various systems. Third, there is a Facebook campaign at the moment that is challenging people to refute this idea that climate change is a good thing - again, only in hopes to waste the time of people that should have better things to do and distract attention away from other pressing matters like changing our dependence on petroleum and the undeniable biological extinction cascade that is not under debate in any scientific literature. How would the human species be able to survive without ecosystem services like food and water cycle regulation? The ideas here are bait.

keep First,I have to say how ridiculous the previous comments are. Claiming that what seems to me to be an interesting philosophical worldview is just a "number of simple fallacies which preculde argument", that because there is a facebook page where people discuss this philosophical worldview, you believe there to be "campaign". That the people who are discussing the philosophy on this page are in your opinion "wasting their time" (I presume they all disagree with you). You claim the ideas "are bait" because they are different to yours and seemingly you would like to see alternative views to your own deleted off the face of the planet. Why do you take the page to be obvious self-promotion. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet for some reason, but making up things in this way and twisting them to your distorted view is really quite bad. And relating to the previous comment I am unsure why a process of "google searching" resulting in books showing up is a good reason to want to remove a page you have personally taken a dislike to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.90.90 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the person who originally set up this page quite some time ago; it must be 9 months to a year at least. I was in Germany when Dr Cummins gave his acceptance speech at the Spinoza Gesellschaft in Marburg Concert Hall. There was talk circling around the academic audience that Dr Cummins was well on his way to becoming one of the prominent philosophers of the century. After reading two of his books I decided to put the page on Wikipedia. I see that the page has been modified/changed/partly deleted since I originally put the page up. I don't know why someone has suddenly decided to take offence to the page, it seems from the comments here that they simply have a different view. This situation reminds me of the recent TED talks scandal where those who had a different philosophy to Rupert Sheldrake put pressure on TED to remove his talk, only to lead to an unsurprising outcry at TED's actions in actually removing the talk under such pressure emanating from a couple of individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesf576 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of Cummins' view should not be the question here and this is not comparable with Sheldrake and TED. The main question is whether Cummins is sufficiently notable to be included. If you wish the article to remain you need to demonstrate his prominence with references to his work from reliable sources like a comment in a book or a published article in a magazine or newspaper or an academic journal from a source that has no financial or legal interest in his theory. Has he received any awards to show that he is outstanding in his field? If not, Cummins may still become notable in the future and this will be the time for a biographical article on WP. Kooky2 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are no reliable secondary sources to show that Dr Cummins has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large to be considered notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia as per WP:NOTABILITY Kooky2 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The wikipedia notability criteria for people is as follows: "[people need to be]significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It seems clear to me that Dr Cummins and his philosophy is significant (potentially very significant), interesting (most definitely), and it is most definitely unusual (you surely won't disagree with that!) and deserving of enough attention to be recorded. Deleting this unique and interesting view from the encyclopedia would not be of value to human society and human enquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.90.90 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second vote from the same IP address: 91.231.90.90 (traced to Brighton). This is not the place to Vote early and vote often. You need to back up claims that Cummins is significant with evidence. Kooky2 (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find absolutely no evidence that this person is significant or notable according to any WP standards. There's really nothing else to say with this one. -Wine Guy~Talk 00:23, 18 July 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. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Forbes (entertainer)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. It is likely that his albums and songs should also be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:45, 3 July 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, czar · · 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Albums are self-released. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 11 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Smith Jackson

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER as she only has done bit parts in movies/television shows, with her largest role being in a non-notable film. Beerest355 Talk 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage and no significant roles. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 July 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, czar · · 20:40, 9 July 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, L Faraone 00:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does appear to have had roles in multiple TV shows an a few minor movies, but none of her roles appear to have been significant. -Wine Guy~Talk 00:28, 18 July 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. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tevatia

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

4 years here as an unreferenced stub. May exist, may not, but that is irrelevant. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No verification. SL93 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked on a couple of occasions before but still can find no sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 14 July 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. L Faraone 00:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Atwood

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

No out-of-universe notability. Beerest355 Talk 16:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references whatsoever. APerson241 (talk!) 19:43, 25 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:39, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Kilduff

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 3 July 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, czar · · 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This again. If it was up to Giant Vandalman here he would delete everything. Why bother even having wiki if this is the attitude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.33 (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 15 July 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 into taxane. There is consensus that the article currently fails WP:GNG and the policies then imply that it can not exist as a standalone article. There is no consensus whether it should be deleted or merged, and as a default info should not disappear, hence it will be merged.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hongdoushans

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

No attempt made to indicate the usefulness or importance of these compounds. This is a general encyclopedia not a chemical formulary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a reference from what I think is a peer-reviewed journal. Individual compounds are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also these references: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Hongdoushans%22 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or possibly merge with Yunnanxane and Taxusin, which are other diterpines from the same plant. Individual compounds are usually considered notable, as Eastmain says. There is no Wikipedia policy excluding scientific material. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The idea that "individual compounds are usually considered notable" is not true and should not be considered sufficient reason for keeping the article. Chemical compounds need to meet criteria outlined in the general notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. Notability requirements for chemical compounds are supported by WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Chemicals as stated in chemistry manual of style. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator's rationale "No attempt made to indicate the usefulness or importance of these compounds. This is a general encyclopedia not a chemical formulary" is sound. If there is no scientific literature to support the usefulness or importance of these compounds (a brief, but incomplete, literature search doesn't turn up anything for me), or if the content of this article is not sufficient for a standalone article, I would recommend merging the content into taxane which covers this general class of compounds rather than simply deleting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: merging into taxane does seem like a good option. Project Osprey (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into taxane, per WP:PRESERVE. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are, by my count, close to 1,000 scholarly articles on taxanes from this specific tree (under the standard name Taxus wallichiana or the nonstandard name Taxus yunnanensis). If that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, I don't know what does. And if anticancer activity doesn't count as useful then, again, I don't know what does. -- 202.124.73.17 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many taxanes and many scholarly articles about them, but that's an argument to keep the article taxane, not necessarily the article under discussion here. As for the "anticancer activity", a positive result in a single in vitro assay is a quite common event, and is not evidence of any actual usefulness. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG for these specific chemicals (the topic of the article here, per Edgar181). Even the cited ref describes the EC50 values it reports (the "anti-cancer activity") as ”inactive" for two of the three compounds. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we merge with Taxane, we should probably do the same for Taxusin and Yunnanxane. -- 203.171.197.13 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to taxane along with the other stub taxane articles. If they amount to something important they can be split out again. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia contains numerous chemical compounds and there seems to be no sensible reason to discriminate against these ones. See WP:NOTPAPER. Warden (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are the sensible reason to distinguish between chemical compounds we have articles about those that we don't. WP:NOTPAPER is not a reason to indiscriminately keep an article and it explicitly opposes that approach. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The practical result of the GNG guideline for chemical compounds is that we include those that are discussed in more than one scientific paper, a small minority of the known ones. This is basically rational for the most part, as most of the ones excluded are synthetic products made once as part of a investigation. Natural products may well be considered different, as having some degree of intrinsic importance as components of the non-human world. I might or might not support such a guideline change, but this would need discussion elsewhere . DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per DGG. He states the usual outcomes fairly well. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 July 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. L Faraone 00:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ward

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

Like most The O.C. character articles, there's no evidence of out-of-universe notability here. Beerest355 Talk 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article contains not a single citation... Because basically there aren't any. The actor is notable, the TV character, not so very much so. - KDS4444^Talk 01:40, 2 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 2 July 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, czar · · 20:36, 9 July 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. No support for deletion apart from nominator. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Hall

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

No assertion of notability in the article. Google search turns up his name in association with Dick Goodwin, but nothing significant even then. Notability isn't inherited, and without playing drums for Goodwin, I don't see why the general reader would want to know about a teacher of music who does a little session work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim's bio serves several purposes. James A. Hall, as jazz guitarist, who goes by "Jim Hall," commonly gets confused with the more famous jazz guitarist Jim Hall (musician), ad naseum. Developing a bio to clarify common confusion between between notable person and a superstar is worthy. Wikipedia serves an important role in distinguishing Ray Brown, the bassist, from Ray Brown the jazz trumpeter (with Stan Kenton), from Ray Brown, the blues guy, from Ray Brown the trumpter with Earth, Wind and Fire. Granted, all are notable. But, Hall, as an influential music educator — at the university level — makes a strong candidate. As a jazz percussionist, Jim is notable. In Tom Lord's Jazz Discography, there are 5 Jim Halls, 1 Jimmy Hall, and and 6 John Halls. For what it's worth, I do not have strong feelings either way. But you should know that I created the page because I myself was confused and thought that publishing knowledge that I gained might be useful to musicologist and others, particularly as years slip away. — Eurodog (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the rationale outlined above, as a Distinguished Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus seems to fully meet notability guidelines (5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).). Regarding inherited notability, the idea, as I understand it, is to prevent fans writing articles on their boy band heroes, especially when they have no independent career. In Hall's case, his background as a sideman with several notable musicians far exceeds this concept of "inherited". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Technopat. Strip out everything except his distinguished professorate at a major university, and you've still got a notable guy. Deleting this article on other grounds would be like using WP:POLITICIAN to delete an article about a smalltown mayor who'd previously served in his national legislature — "other grounds" and the mayor's spot don't detract from professorate and national legislator, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appears to be a misreading of the nature of notability. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources, not just a name on a list. We do not have articles on every professor (UK) or distinguished professor (USA) as not every person who is thus acknowledged internally by their university is also of general interest. The point at which we determine they are notable enough is when an independent reliable source writes about that person. While a university's own professor list is proof that a person is a professor at that university, it is not proof in itself of notability. It should also be recognised that his university comes outside the top 100 nationally in all rankings so is not a major university. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 3 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There has been more trivia added to this article since nominating, but nothing significant to prove notability. No reliable sources have been added. Fails WP:BIO (no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"); fails WP:PROF (meets none of the listed criteria as person is not distinguished in their field, and does not work at a major establishment); fails WP:NMUSIC (does not meet any of the criteria there); fails WP:N (the Notability policy - the person has not "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large"). This is not a count the number of ivoters decision, it's a look at the policy and guidelines decision, and it becomes a relatively easy decision. Should not need to be relisted if article, sourcing and guidelines are examined closely. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:44, 16 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-Acoustic Research

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:ORG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've added a link to the project's own site, but I am not finding anything out there to demonstrate its notability. AllyD (talk) 05:50, 2 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could not find Reliable Source coverage in a Google News search. Hard to search because the phrase "Electro-Acoustic Research" is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 15 July 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 under WP:A7 (no indication of importance). Non-admin closure (speedy deleted by Bbb23). みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ispace

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

No assertion of notability and I can't find a single source that relates to the subject of this article. Beerest355 Talk 19:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging speedy delete since this was created slightly over an hour ago. みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 9 July 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. WP:CSD#G3. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Barker, New York

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

The current list is a list of mayors of the city of Springfield, Massachusetts (see List of mayors of Springfield, Massachusetts and the articles of those listed), and has nothing to do with the village of Barker, New York. – TMF (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The first three edits indicate creation of list with sole name of "Kerry Corcoran" then padded out explicitly by the list of mayors of Springfield. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I should have added that Barker, Broome County, New York doesn't have a mayor, so the contents of this list can't be edited to save it. Ditto with Village of Barker. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty Watercolour

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:NOTE. Neo12345292 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it asserts a mild but real degree of notability, and supports that assertion. Keep. DS (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article went through AfC and has been reviewed and approved by reviewer EagerToddler39. The article currently has 23 sources, all covering the subject of the article in detail, with about two-thirds focusing exclusively on the subject. The sources include Wired, Huffington Post, and CNN. Therefore, this article meets WP:NOTE. AlmostGrad (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't go quite as far as AlmostGrad, but the sources do establish notability. Wired and Business Insider should see to that. Huon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll admit that I feel like most "internet famous" people shouldn't really have an article on Wikipedia, but this one does meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. It's not the most notable subject of course and the citation overkill should probably be cleaned up, but notability appears to be demonstrated by the references in the article enough to justify keeping the article on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 05:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of discussion from multiple different reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Revent (talk) 07:46, 16 July 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 Georgia Institute of Technology. (non-admin closure) Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudman Hall (Georgia Tech)

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

Also nominating:

I declined these CSDs, but I am struggling to find any evidence of notability for them. None of the sources on any of the articles establishes notability. There are a few sources about a dry ice bombing in Cloudman, but that does not give notability to the hall itself (and the coverage is hardly enough to warrant an article on the event). The rest of the sources are either primary of unreliable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These three subjects are not notable per wikipedia standards. It might be nice to simply redirect them into an article on the Georgia Tech campus if one existed. I believe that subject would certainly be notable. Oh and I didn't see a deletion template at the top of the third article.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Georgia Institute of Technology which lacks a list of residence halls. Other than the questionably notable dry ice incident there's nothing of substance here that wouldn't be better presented as part of a larger list. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does a list of residence halls and other campus building belong in that article? I think an article on the campus would be a better idea. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've known that these existed, and I've never really known what to do with them. The best idea I've come up with is to merge them all to some sort of List of Georgia Institute of Technology residence halls or something like that. Disavian (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion here I merged and redirected to a new article on Georgia Tech main campus. The EXTENSIVE section in the main article can now be trimmed also? Anyway, I hope this is okay with everyone. I did it based on what seems to be a consensus here that it wld be nice to include some of the information if there was an appropriate place... Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd then propose that we undelete, then merge/direct the contents of the following to that new article: Smith Hall (Georgia Tech), Caldwell Hall (Georgia Tech), Brown Hall (Georgia Tech), Harrison Hall (Georgia Tech). Then merge the contents of Category:Georgia Institute of Technology residence halls to that article. Disavian (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If it can't be done through this process then I think it has to go to wp:refund. I merged almost all of the articles up for deletion. Not sure how much needs to actually be included. But I figured at least it's preserved in some form now even if the buildings get trimmed to a mention... Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests have been made to undelete articles referenced above. -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping up and doing that. :) Disavian (talk) 00:01, 15 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Family's Got Guts episodes

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

List of game show episodes. This is not a series with fictional plot-driven elements or story lines that are featured either in single episodes or across multiple episodes. This is merely a stunt- and athletic-based game show on which families compete. Episodes of this show do not meet guidelines set forth in WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs for similar game/stunt show episode list articles:

AldezD (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the arguments raised in the other deletion discussions. Trivial information here, since game shows do not have plots or anything else ongoing that requires an episode list. Not notable. Beerest355 Talk 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Beerest355. It is not standard to have lists for individual game show episodes nor do I think it should be as none of the individual episode data helps us understand the topic. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and 'type what I see' recaps of a little-viewed game show which comes down to 'one team won, one team lost', and of somebody wants to see who scored what points, it's called "nick.com/guts" or whatever their site is. Also delete as one of the many contributions under the many socks of the blocked ELF TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 11 July 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. L Faraone 00:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sairme

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

I think this is kind of adverting,especially the last sections,which don't have any references.Not sure if it meets CSD,though.So,AfD.
This article has previously been declined at WP:AFC L smll 10:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no good reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the article to be about the place as well as the water. Certainly notable per ample coverage in reliable sources. Keep. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sections still appear to be promotional and are unreferenced.L smll 09:38, 28 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 2 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 18:25, 9 July 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. Sandstein 06:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vestoj

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

Non-notable journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any selective databse. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'journal' appears here to be used in a non-academic manner, and as a synonym for 'magazine', in accordance with the Wikipedia definition of 'journal'. Vestoj is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publication but it also falls outside of the definition of 'fashion magazine'. Though its content is regularly written by academics, it is not intended for scholarly use but rather to bring academic research to a general public. Vestoj places as much emphasis on visual content as it does on articles (academic papers, journalistic articles, literature and poetry); in this sense Vestoj occupies a rare, interdisciplinary and groundbreaking space in fashion publishing. However, if 'journal' is still not deemed a valid definition, perhaps 'periodical' or 'publication' are more suitable options?

The article on Vestoj has several independent sources listed as references and it satisfies the following criteria on notability:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be / the main topic of the source material.[1]

I just checked and all links are working, not sure how come you got dead ends RandyKitty? But I thought maybe this will help clarify your concerns, you will notice that these are neither passing mentions or only blog based references:

References:

Det Svenska Modeundret is a book published by Norstedts, the oldest publishing house in Sweden, and p.118-120 deals with Vestoj. This reference is from the University of the Arts London Research Online Library. This is the largest art and fashion university conglomerate in Great Britain. This article is about Vestoj’s first issue on SID, which is the online publication of Pressbyrån, the largest chain of newspaper and magazine stores in Sweden. It is written by Johan Wirfäldt, one of Sweden’s most prominent media journalists. This article is also on SID, written by Fredrik Strage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Strage, one of the most prominent journalists in Sweden dealing with popular culture. This link is the online publication for AnOther Magazine, one of the most respected fashion magazines worldwide with over 606,930 readers (http://www.anothermag.com/content/advertising/Another-Media-Pack-2011.pdf). Other interviewees in the series An Intellectual fashion include Harold Koda, curator at the Met Museum in NYC, Suzy Menkes of the International Herald Tribune, Didier Grumbach, chairman of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, Caroline Evans Professor in Fashion History and Theory at Central Saint Martins, the artist Maurizio Cattelan, the writer Douglas Coupeland and the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. http://www.anothermag.com/current/An_Intellectual_Fashion This reference appeared both in print and online, Svenska dagbladet is Sweden’s largest daily newspaper. Vestoj’s editor is quoted in the main article and Vestoj is described as one of the best in the crop of new fashion publications in a sidebar that also mentions Condé Nast’s LOVE. Same as point 5! Donatien Grau who edits the column also regularly works with Palais de Tokyo in Paris, has published a book on contemporary art and philosophy for Sternberg Press, has lectured at Cornell University and writes for the Huffington Post.

Thank you for helping me make this article more rigorous - I hope this information helps make things clearer for you, I realise that it isn’t so easy with all these sources in Swedish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkiespankie (talk • contribs) 08:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]

(On that note, please look at the Wiki page for Cabinet magazine, which appears to have significantly less rigorous referencing than this page on Vestoj: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_%28magazine%29) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.218.87 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — 80.57.218.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but your reading of WP:NJournals and WP:GNG is rather off. Whether you consider Vestoj to be a fashion magazine, an academic journal, or something in between, it fails all our guidelines. There is no significant coverage. The sources given in the article are blogs (not a reliable source), dead links, or in-passing mentions of Vestoj. The article on Cabinet is indeed not very good: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I just noted that the article was not tagged for any Wikiproject, probably explaining the low participation here. I've provisionally tagged it for WP Journals and WP Magazines. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 8 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 18:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and all links are working, not sure how come you got dead ends RandyKitty? But I thought maybe this will help clarify your concerns, you will notice that these are neither passing mentions or only blog based references:

References:

1. 1. Det Svenska Modeundret is a book published by Norstedts, the oldest publishing house in Sweden, and p.118-120 deals with Vestoj.

2. 2. This reference is from the University of the Arts London Research Online Library. This is the largest art and fashion university conglomerate in Great Britain.

3. 3. This article is about Vestoj’s first issue on SID, which is the online publication of Pressbyrån, the largest chain of newspaper and magazine stores in Sweden. It is written by Johan Wirfäldt, one of Sweden’s most prominent media journalists.

4. 4. This article is also on SID, written by Fredrik Strage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Strage, one of the most prominent journalists in Sweden dealing with popular culture.

5. 5. This link is the online publication for AnOther Magazine, one of the most respected fashion magazines worldwide with over 606,930 readers (http://www.anothermag.com/content/advertising/Another-Media-Pack-2011.pdf). Other interviewees in the series An Intellectual fashion include Harold Koda, curator at the Met Museum in NYC, Suzy Menkes of the International Herald Tribune, Didier Grumbach, chairman of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, Caroline Evans Professor in Fashion History and Theory at Central Saint Martins, the artist Maurizio Cattelan, the writer Douglas Coupeland and the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy.

http://www.anothermag.com/current/An_Intellectual_Fashion

6. 6. This reference appeared both in print and online, Svenska dagbladet is Sweden’s largest daily newspaper. Vestoj’s editor is quoted in the main article and Vestoj is described as one of the best in the crop of new fashion publications in a sidebar that also mentions Condé Nast’s LOVE.

7. 7. Same as point 5! Donatien Grau who edits the column also regularly works with Palais de Tokyo in Paris, has published a book on contemporary art and philosophy for Sternberg Press, has lectured at Cornell University and writes for the Huffington Post.

Thank you for helping me make this article more rigorous - I hope this information helps make things clearer for you, I realise that it isn’t so easy with all these sources in Swedish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkiespankie (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — Henkiespankie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non notable fashion magazine. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This claim is baseless according to the Wikipedia definition of Notability - the list of references for this article clearly show significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oltedal (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Oltedal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak keep I'm trying to find some reason to make an exception. The board of editorial advisors is in fact exceedingly distinguished in the field. This is actually a series of individual topical issues, each with a special title, and there are 3 so far, It's not exactly an academic journal, nor is it exactly a fashion magazine--it's the sortr of hybrid publication in the fine arts, generally distributed through informal channels, and I would extent as broad a use of the inclusion criteria as possible to such publications. This sort of publication is extremely difficult to track down, but people in the subject field seem to have found it: cf: . (btw, There is actually another source . H Ekström, "By the Secret Fashion Concil. Project No 1-jewellery collection" which contain the following paragraph: (on p.3, in google translation "Last spring released analysis oriented fashion magazine Vestoj a special issue of fashion and magic, with articles skivna of professors in Fashion Studies, curators and fashion journalists. VI magaz-ment editor Anja Aronowsky Cronberg, who previously worked with ACNE-magazine wrote the following "fashion, just like magic, refuses to be defined in any one way; rationalists anlyses does not apply... ") However, it is not notable in the usual way if viewed as an academic journal, because altho we do not use the GNG for academic journals, but rather the criterion of being in major indexes, this does not seem to be in any. Viewed as a fashion magazine, there is in my opinion no really firm criterion, but it does not meet the basic screen of being listed in WorldCat, which means that it is not in any US or major UK academic library. But technically, the publications about it cited in this discussion & in the article do meet the GNG. If we really do mean the GNG as a standard, we should follow it. Incidentally, it's worth seeing their contents display: click on any of the issues at its home site, for example and play the video. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 July 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Ponzinibbio

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

Unsourced - notability not established. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 - Has not competed in the UFC, nor does he have any planned upcoming fights with the organization. But was on TUF Brazil 2, so a redirect would be better than deletion. Luchuslu (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 This is an unsourced article about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. A redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2 — He was supposed to be in the finals of TUF Brazil 2, but broke his hand during the semifinals. Will probably get a good contract, but per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, better keep it as a redirect. Poison Whiskey 18:33, 15 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Moto X

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

Article that posits possible new smartphone that may or may not appear. Seems to be an advertising article. Single reference is broken. Seems to fail WP:ORG scope_creep 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It has been officially acknowledged as early as last May by none other than Motorola's CEO and an ad was just revealed today. Why would you mention WP:CORP if just about every smartphone and certainly every flagship has an article on Wikipedia? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a full page ad that should be in "several major U.S. newspapers" tomorrow. I would say that tips the scale towards "may" rather than "may not appear."-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:57, 2 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a little crystalballish, but seems legit. The one reference is definitely real. Now that we have it, let's keep it. -- Y not? 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant tech journalism coverage is inescapable from a simple search engine test with nearly a dozen reports from The Verge alone. Clearly passes GNG. I don't think anyone would have barked if (per the WP:ORG rationale → WP:PRODUCT) the article was instead redirected summary-style until suitably expanded, but there is more than enough for several paragraphs within the aforementioned sources I've read just now. czar · · 23:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pointless to delete this, when it will have to be created again in a few weeks time when we get more information. Onco p53 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a big story by the WSJ today which I added to the article. The original argument for deletion is no longer valid.--199.88.143.1 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 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. New sources added appear to make it now meet Wikipedia talk:Notability (fictional characters). (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Roberts

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

No out-of-universe notability - just some summaries and a trivia section. Beerest355 Talk 20:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but she's an iconic character from a show that was very popular for a while. There are independent sources for the show, e.g.:

The O.C.: A Critical Understanding (Critical Studies in Television) by Lori Bindig and Andrea M. Bergstrom

O.C. Undercover: An Unofficial Guide to the Stars and Styles of the O.C. by Brittany Kent

Plus a lot of newspaper and magazine and website stories. I added a couple of refs to the article. It needs improvement, e.g. more on the TV production aspects of the character's history (casting, becoming increasingly central to the show, etc) and analysis of the character (there's good material on that in the Bindig and Bergstrom book). So there's material out there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:04, 26 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 2 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I concede that the article isn't the best, but she was one of the primary characters of the show, which was itself well received. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited from being a character from a popular show. If notability can't be established outside of "she's a main character on a show" then the article is unneeded. Beerest355 Talk 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now, don't take this as a personal thing and far be it for me to tell you what you should do, but have you considered contributing to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fictional characters), rather than being a wee bit overzealous in nominating pages for deletion? Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, it appears that there is, in fact, scholarly work on the subject of this article. Had you spared a minute to have searched for any of these, you would have found them yourself. After viewing your user contribs. log, I can't say I am especially impressed; perhaps that is simply the so-called "inclusionist" within me, but I do honestly think that you have been nominating acceptable articles that, I shall concede, can be improved upon. If you keep this up, you'd nominate virtually all the articles on fictional characters for goodness' sake. Please, just for a while, put it on hold till there's a policy drafted — you're more than welcome to work on that, though. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nominate fictional characters exclusively, and I don't target every single one. Unless I see there is no chance of notability, I won't nominate it. However, there are several times where I've made mistakes, and I have closed nominations early because of that. Beerest355 Talk 01:13, 14 July 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 close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Evans (Good Times)

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

This Good Times character in not notable in their own right. Wlmg (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 July 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 Good Times. (non-admin closure) Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Evans

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

This Good Times character is not notable in her own right. Wlmg (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Good Times#Cast and characters. I don't see the reason for a flat-out delete. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences of each and redirect to Good Times. The individual articles don't appear warranted, but a summary of these characters (as done with the "minor" characters listed below them) certainly seems appropriate. Gong show 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google book search for either shows lots of encyclopedic content exists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And said content hasn't been added to the article because...? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether it has been added to the article is irrelevant at AFD. We are discussing whether a topic merits encyclopedic attention (whether there is encyclopedic content for a subject). We do not debate how well that content is incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, merely saying encyclopedic content exists doesn't hold much weight; you have to prove it exists. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thelma source proof: [2], [3], [4].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Michael source proof: [5], [6], [7].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Those 6 sources given are either brief mentions in encyclopedias, Google Books content generated from Wikipedia content, or brief mentions in a book that references Good Times , which itself was only briefly mentioned. These are not the type of sources that can anchor an article.Wlmg (talk) 15:18, 11 July 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. General consensus is to keep places that are proven to exist; That seems to of been done here (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dazgon

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [8][9] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsure There is definitely a settlement at this ___location but I am unsure of the name. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geonames calls it Razvaliny Dazgon (Развалины Дазгон) and calls it an "abandoned populated place", for whatever that's worth. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 10 July 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, L Faraone 00:16, 17 July 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) Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achinger coat of arms

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

A massive walled garden of more than 200 articles on Polish coats of arms, most of them abandoned years ago in a state similar to this one. Very few have a bit more information, but these are the exceptions. Yes, noble families had coats of arms, but having pages detailing each and every one of them is serious overkill (and having pages, like here, that don't detail them but just list them is totally useless). They are all listed in some catalogues of coats of arms, but very few (or even none) of them are actually individually notable. Fram (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General note: The below collapsible "List of pages included in this AfD" added by Fram as of 07:38, 10 July 2013‎ (+6,575) were added after the discussion with actual votes from several different users already started:

But I had indicated clearly what I intended to do and where I had gotten from the very start of this AfD. Please give the full picture when adding unsigned "general notes". Fram (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Keep - useful and important articles --Sobiepan (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While these articles contain verifiable info (and references are available, e.g., in Polish wikipedia,), they left unreferenced and basically abandoned, so formally Fram is right. I suggest the community must pledge to rescue these articles and postpone this vote for, say, 1 month. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2; I'm also tempted to slap the nominator with a trout for blanket nom. E.g. Białynia coat of arms has a solid text, a reference (and more a readily found) and is used for noble families with wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Białynia coat of arms could easily be merged to Jastrzębiec coat of arms though (and the horrible List of Surnames That May Use The Jastrzębiec Coat Of Arms is included in this AfD). Fram (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are two different coat of arms, even if they are looking similar. Its like to merge the coat of arms of Germany and Austria... Or the Flag of Monaco with that of Indonesia--Sobiepan (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Białynia one is a slightly modified branch of the Jastrzębiec one, it directly is derived from that one, as described in the article. That they look the same is because the first is based on the second, with one additional feature. There is no historical link at all between the Monaco and Indonesia flags. Please keep a basic level of intellectual honesty in this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

close this deletion discussion I reviewed briefly several other pages. Most of them are in good state, i.e., not "in a state similar to this one". "Massive", "walled garden", "abandoned" are not valid reasons for deletion. Moreover, the fact that "They are all listed in some catalogues of coats of arms" means that all of them have multiple sources of verifiable information, hence satisfy the general criterion of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All stamps are included in multiple catalogues, with images, dates of issue, number of copies printed, theme, value, ...; does this mean that every single stamp or stamp series ever created can have an article here? There is a reason that the GNG is only a guideline, not a policy; being included in e.g. a book of 4500 coats of arms is not necessarily sufficient to get an article here (though of course it is better than not being included), and AfD's can decide for previously undiscussed topics that they don't get articles, even if they meet the literal reading of the GNG. Fram (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question indeed. But, no worries, WP:NOTVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entries on this list from Category:Coats of arms of cities in Poland should be considered separately from the noble families as the former have potential merge targets at the city articles. As a for instance, Coat of arms of Kłodzko includes a reference (if not inline citations) and has information that is not at Kłodzko. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination does not properly list the articles to be deleted per WP:BUNDLE. Considering some 250 articles (per nominator's reckoning) under the title of one article does not give proper notice to anyone scanning the AfD page. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a Bibliography and two External sources. Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed... Poeticbent talk 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were added after the nomination, so the bed side was OK in the morning :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was created by User:Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin along with 76 similar articles (see: X!'s tools) Szwedowski made his last edit on 31 May 2013 If I'm not mistaken, his wife (R.I.P.) passed away in 2012. Shouldn't we be asking what his plans are? Poeticbent talk 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just being an abandoned article or not touched for years is not a valid reason to delete. Yes it needs improvement but so do many articles. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but while we're at it, perhaps we should think about renaming and refocusing or rescoping these articles en masse. They should be ideally about Polish noble clans (rody szlacheckie) which happened to be identified by this or another coat of arms, and not about the arms themselves. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noble families are a separate entity, also notable, but not the same as coas. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not agree with Fram. These articles need improvements and more informations, but just the fact that some of them are abandoned or not touched for years is not a valid reason to delete. Interfides (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? has anyone considered that? Making a list out of it (with separate articles for clearly notable CoAs) might be the best option. Renata (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this idea. Fewer long articles are always better than lots of very short ones. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Renata, it seems you failed to notice my remark: all there COAs clearly satisfy WP:GNG, since there are plenty of Polish heraldry books, hence deletion is out of question; merge is routine cleanup. I posted a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, calling for a rescue mission. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - If good merge targets can be proposed, I have no objection against a merge or merges. Fram (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many keeps, but apart from the poor state of most of these articles, can anybody explain what makes these notable subjects? Take e.g. Bajbuza coat of arms, created in 2004 already, tagged as unreferenced since 2009 until yesterday; what's the point of it? Amadej coat of arms, Brama coat of arms, ...; exactly the same story. Articles consisting purely of infoboxes with a list of names. The vast, vast majority of these articles are basically empty shells with an image. Articles about noble families, those I can understand, and that these have a section on the coat of arms, no problem; but articles on hundreds (and potentially thousands) of coats of arms? Why? Fram (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm not including all coats of arms here, the one that seem to have a claim to notability, like the Janina coat of arms, are not up for deletion. But these are the exceptions. 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Whats wrong with these articles? (nominated by Fram for deletion...)

Półkozic coat of arms

Coat of arms of Poznań

Coat of arms of Głogów

Check also that nomination...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coat_of_arms_of_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=563531782

--Sobiepan (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That error which I immediately reverted? Yes, it would have been stupid to include that one here, since it is clearly a notable topic. Sadly, on AWB, "skip" and "save" are located right above each other, so a misclick is easily done. The fact that I immediately overturned that nomination indicates that some thought is put into this and the nominations are not indiscriminate. I don't suppose that was your point though... Fram (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for your examples, let's take one: Lew II coat of arms; it includes gems like "Alfred Znamierowski (Polish: Alfred Znamierowski)", but that's something that needs cleanup. The rest of the article is very hard to understand. If this is one of the best examples, then I am only reinforced in my decision to nominate these for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another of your examples, Krzywda coat of arms; the first source gives a 404 error, the "rootsweb" source is a web discussion, not a reliable source at all, and the bottom link to a Russian website doesn't look to be a reliable source either (and the link to this article isn't really clear, the source says nothing about the coat of arms at all). So it seems that there is plenty wrong with that article... Fram (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sobiepan, let's reverse the question; why should Mniszech Coat of Arms, which you recently created, be kept? Why did you create it as a separate article from Mniszech family, which you also created (and which seems to be a notable subject)? Fram (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Mniszech example, OK, coat of arms which were used just by one family could be merged.

But the rest can be expanded. Please check some examples on Polish wiki:

--Sobiepan (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that perhaps some of them can be expanded. Others seem to be in a similar state on the Polish Wikipedia as well, e.g. pl:Herburt (herb szlachecki) or pl:Hodyc or pl:Hołownia or pl:Hornowski or pl:Iwanowski or pl:Jasieńczyk (herb szlachecki) or... It seems as if these coat of arms articles have been created indiscriminately, without any distinction between notable ones and non notable ones, without any thought about which can truly support a separate article and which would be better as a section in articles about notable families instead, or simply deleted. The majority of these articles ha serious problems, not only here but on the Polish wiki as well, it seems. Fram (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am on holidays and thus can't reply in length; but I believe all coas are notable. PO. But yes, please merge the monstrosity that is List of Surnames That May Use The Jastrzębiec Coat Of Arms to Jastrzębiec coat of arms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that Fram has a basic misunderstanding: AfD is not a place for a cleanup (I forgot the policy link). Clearly, there is lots of cleanup here: adding refs, merging, etc. But to nominate Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth for deletion is big overzealous overkill, even if caused by frustration by unreferencedness. A normal way was to start a general discussion somewhere, as I explained Fram in their talk page, which they chose to ignore. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no, I'm perfectly aware of what AfD is intended for. Most of these simply need deletion. Some of them can be merged or redirected, but in most cases, no merge target exists. To get them deleted, I started a general discussion, here, which is the place for such discussions. As for Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and policy reasons, WP:NOTGALLERY would be a good start. Fram (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming that you do aware of what AfD is and not, and that you are entitled to your opinion that they "need deletion", your opinion is rebutted by Wikipedia rule I mentioned: WP:GNG, in particular, existence of multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in essence. May be my argument is faulty, but it is based on your own words, and I didn't notice your argument against it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep it's possible that some of these coats of arms are not notable (and that even if they're non-notable there's no notable potential article to merge them to), but a blanket nom of 200 articles is not the way to go about this. Let each be considered on its own merits. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some noble families are notable, their coats of arms rarely are. It would make more sense to include the coats of arms in the articles about the families and mention their arms there. The "Achinger coat of arms" says nothing about the coat of arms - all the information is about the person who was granted the arms. When and why was he presented them? What do the symbols mean? Is there anything exceptional about them? TFD (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THEM ALL! - Dear Wikipedians, I met Wikipedia in 2005 or 2006 (long time ago). I did and contributed in many articles (so many that I don’t remember most of them anymore). They were mainly about Polish coats of arms. A few of them were (more or less) “acceptable” articles… mostly they were just “stub” articles (I did the “stub” hoping somebody else would improve them). I’m not a fine genealogist or heraldist. What can I say? I did my best.
Nowadays I see that many of this “stubs” remains like that. That’s sad!
Many Wikipedians are Polish born or Polish descendants… It’s not my fault if few people took my “stubs” and make “fine articles”, according Wikipedia standards. Yet, let’s remark that “English Wikipedia” is not only the Wikipedia for British, Yankees or Australians… it is also the “international” Wikipedia. For “international”, I mean that is the “worldwide” Wikipedia (that’s a paramount position!)
Anyway, let’s remember that Polish coats of arms are National cultural icons. The oldest of them exist before the Christening (and born) of the Kingdom of Poland itself.
Polish coats of arms don’t belong only to the offsprings of the szlachta families, at all. They belong to the Polish culture… therefore, to the Polish Nation and the Polish People as a whole.
I’m conscious that :User:Fram has the best intention keeping English Wikipedia articles in higher standards. Yet, I must be honest and express my own feeling. I do feel that it happens: Katyn massacre I in 1940, Katyn massacre II in 2010, known as: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and now is going on a “Katyn massacre III” in Wikipedia… That’s my feeling… and I feel sad and angry. Please, excuse me. I don’t have the intention to blame :User:Fram, at all! This is just the feeling of an old Wikipedian.
Certainly, most of this articles need improvement, but deletion… in any way!

--Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin (talk) 04:24, 18 July 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 Lady Gaga#Public image. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little monsters (fan)

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

The article duplicates content from other articles (coatrack) and could reasonable be merged into Lady Gaga#Public image alone. The creator has done well to cite the article but appears to have a conflict of interest from his/her user talk page and so i intend to get a wider community discussion here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Lady Gaga#Public image, as it's non-notable on its own. The creator tried so hard, but it just doesn't work on its own. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lady Gaga#Public image per precedent (see WP:Articles for deletion/Belieber, for example, where Lady Gaga is actually mentioned as a precedent by the closer!). Ansh666 06:11, 10 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Theatre (2013)

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

Fails notability guidelines for films. Andrew³²⁷ 13:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just nothing out there except for this Wikipedia site, IMDb, and mirrors of one or the other. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Supposedly having screened last month, this short film fails WP:NF. If the author wishes his new article placed in userspace for work on as sources perhaps come forward, I have no objection. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:35, 10 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Güngör

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

CSD contested, PROD declined. Person does not meet WP:BIO Dewritech (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rationale that I gave for WP:PROD deletion still stands: "I contested speedy deletion because having a book published by a notable publisher is an indication of importance/significance, but I can't find any reviews of either book by searching the Google News archive, which has good coverage of the Turkish press, or any other significant coverage of Güngör by more general searches". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Phil Bridger, nothing to indicate notability. Finnegas (talk) 13:52, 14 July 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 withdrawn by nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taranauts

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

None-notable book series, see https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Taranauts jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore, has got plenty of mentions and articles in Google News.. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:01, 9 July 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.

Please keep this page, for avoiding taranauts page what i want to improve. Tranauts is a 8 book series, if you check the blog site you can see all details www.taranauts.com blog. i took all details from there only. please verify & keep the taranauts article page alive. Thank You ( Krishvino )

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mullie

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for academia Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not satisfying WP:PROF or WP:GNG; even if the article cited more of his ~23 publications it would not be notable. -- Scray (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Web of Science indeed lists 23 publications for Mullie, which have been cited a grand total of 205 times, giving him an h-index of 6. In high-citation fields like cancer and nutrition research, that's a rather clear failure to meet WP:ACADEMIC. No indication that this meets any other notability guideline either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 10 July 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. Sandstein 06:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware-William & Mary rivalry

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

Does not pass GNG, nor is this an actual rivalry. In my WP:BEFORE search I found 0 hits for articles discussing any kind of actual rivalry between these two schools, let alone their football programs. I'm an alumnus of William & Mary and can speak firsthand that nobody at my school considers Delaware a football rival (Richmond, Old Dominion, and even UVA, yes). Jrcla2 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced rivalry. No indication that this is a rivalry, and not just two teams who've played each other a lot. Howicus (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral I see no assertion in the list/article why this particular rivalry should be notable. I'm also seeing no sources cited. I suppose this would be nice for a sports almanac, but I think that for these two particular programss, a "rivalry" article is a little too much granular detail than is warranted. Some rivalries are indeed notable. It does not appear that this one is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed position to neutral. It looks like it might can be saved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting GNG. That said, I did find one 1994 (paywalled) news hit . Google gives the relevant text as: "'It's developed into a great rivalry,' Delaware coach Tubby Raymond said. William and Mary's toughest task will be attempting to stop fullback Daryl Brown ..." TRIBE PUTS HOME WINNING STREAK ON THE LINE \ SHOWDOWN WITH 12TH-RANKED DELAWARE COULD DECIDE YANKEE CONFERENCE RACE. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Keep/Merge per sources cited below by Go Phightins! 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's enough to stick it in the school's football team articles in my book, maybe not the whole thing--but mention. If anyone finds a few more like this let us know--college football has been around a long time, maybe there's a history we don't know about. But we'll need to see it first.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article points to two others: [10] and [11] which are over a decade apart that refer to it as a rivalry. As such I would be inclined to support a weak keep or at the least merge into respective football program articles. Go Phightins! 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If at least a few weak sources exist to claim it's a rivalry, I'd support merging also, but this article should not be stand-alone. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delaware–James Madison football rivalry is another new article of a similar nature. GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd. I went to William & Mary, and my brother went to Delaware; there's no rivalry between the schools, and even if there were, we're not going to meet WP:NRIVALRY. This matchup is only a "rivalry" in the sense that any two teams from the same conference are "rivals." A few passing references in a local paper isn't strong enough for WP:GNG. At most, a sentence at William & Mary Tribe football to the effect of "Delaware is occasionally considered a William & Mary rival," supported by those sources. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any local newspaper can call any two teams in any sport, who played each other a "rivalry" but doesn't mean it is one according to the more extensive coverage required by WP:GNG, which I don't see any other than that source linked above. Secret ^account 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mentions in a local paper doesn't assert notability for a rivalry, and just because two teams are in the same conference doesn't quite merit a rivalry, such as USC and Washington for example: just because the two play in the Pac-12 doesn't make them rivals. The most that can be done is a mention on each team's respective page about the other. Zappa O Mati 17:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 03:20, 22 July 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 List of Doraemon characters. L Faraone 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hidetoshi Dekisugi

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

The prod was removed. This is a non-notable character. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a redirect to the character article would make sense here.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not independently notable but a redirect to List of Doraemon characters seems reasonable. tutterMouse (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TutterMouse. No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:53, 14 July 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. L Faraone 00:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becketts Forest, New South Wales

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

not a suburb see www.ga.gov.au; the modest content is highly inaccurate and is probably a mediocre hoax attempt Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google Maps for this place and this Google search doesn't bring anything back either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is at Place Names Australia as LOCU, that is 'Locality (unbounded), Place name, Road corner, Road bend, Corner, Meteorological station, Ocean place name, Surfing spot' Paul foord (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heaps of resources indicate that it should be kept.--Coekon (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is sourced to the Hornsby council's Wiki, but that page seems to have been deleted. Where there is quite a bit of historical coverage of a 'LOCU' they can be notable, but this one has very little except empty directory entries and the like. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment by nominator Yes it does exist, as a LOCU (a neighbourhood) but where?? Certainly not anywhere near Neutral Jn or Cooranbong. Nothing wrong with a redirect to the suburb which it is within or maybe even heaps of resources? could conceivably create an article but we usually do not hold our collective breaths for such to happen, do we ? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, putting the figures from Geoscience Australia into Google Maps gives us this: [12]. It looks like a forest alright, but there's no indication in Google Maps that there's anything by that name there. The ___location does match what's on Bonzle here. It also looks like it's in Hornsby Shire. That said, the lack of substantial secondary sources on this place would indicate to me that while this place formally exists, it's a non-notable rural locality. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Relisting comment: So far, no consensus was reached, let us discuss more.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the spirit of our notability guidelines is basically to ensure that we only make articles on subjects for which there's actually sourceable, verifiable, encyclopedic things to say. Very little information on this particular locality seems to be available, apart from the fact that it disputably exists - it's not even unanimous as to where it is or what it consists of. ~ mazca ^talk 13:32, 9 July 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayhan Ulubelen

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

In my opinion, this article gives you too much detail on Uluben, but gives little evidence on her notability, with only two links, one of which is dead. Mat ty.007 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-few sources, Randykitty has addressed part of the problem, and, as stated, passes WP:ACADEMIC. Mat ty.007 12:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very good article, but that is not a reason to delete it. I've added a source confirming that she is (or perhaps wa) a member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences, so this clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 9 July 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. L Faraone 00:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

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

I can find no evidence of notability per WP:COMPANY. The article was written by someone from the company ~~and appears to be merely promotional in nature~~. I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The article does not have a particularly promotional tone; it provides an historical overview of the company. There's nothing there promoting the company or it's products; it reads rather factually. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I agree with you that it is not promotional as currently written, so I struck that part from my nomination. I'm not convinced that the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The articles establish notability in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and Valdosta, Georgia but that is still local to these two cities.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning towards a weak delete, but the sources noted by Northamerica demonstrate the subject is notable. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Martin's is one of the larger "major-minor" commercial bakeries. They have a presence throughout the northeastern United States, and should easily meet the standard for inclusion. The article does need better sourcing outside the local stuff being used. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:32, 11 July 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 keep. Editorial options such as merging, refucussing, redirecting, etc. can be discussed on the respective article talk pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homo sapiens

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

We already have a Human article. This has been a redirect to Human for two years, two mounts ago it was made an article. I don't see how this article can be anything other then a "scientific" (for lack of a better term) POV fork of Human. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit unusual for WP, but the topic our species as a species is certainly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our our species is a species, you can't talk about a species as anything other then a species. Even when you talk about religious and philosophical views about a species, your talking about a species. If by "as a species" you mean beyond, we have Human biology#Biology for that, develop that enough to split it off into it's own Human_biology article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are "homo sapiens" and "human" synonyms? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you define humans as the species. Some defenotins of "Human" include the whole Homo genus, which would include Neanderthals. Some just include the only non-extinct sub-species (sort of like a breed): Homo sapiens sapiens. which would exclude members of the species.

But to really answer your question, yes. Most sources define human as the species; not part of the species, or multiple species, but the whole species and only the species. That's the definition our human article uses, Homo and Homo sapiens sapiens have their own article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change scope There is always some ongoing discussion at the Human article about what exactly humans are. Is it all Homo or is it Homo sapiens or is it Homo sapiens sapiens or something else? This article might be a useful place to discus the taxonomy only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can make a "Taxonomy of Humans" (or similar) for that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. I am just pointing out that there is an issue of exactly who are humans that should be covered somewhere. I agree that, as a duplication of the Human the article is pointless. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several different ways in which "Homo sapiens" and "human" could be considered separate topics. For one "Homo sapiens" is simply a species, whereas Human includes a whole range of ideological connotaions such as "humanity" and "humanism" that don't apply to the simple biological topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is useful for discussing taxonomy. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have slugs (terrestrial gastropod mollusc), and snails (Helix pomatia) and puppy dog tails (C. l. familiaris). In these (along with cat, rabbit, etc.), we treat the common word as the broader topic and describe the scientific term in a scientific article (more or less). – S. Rich (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Human can go more in-depth about how humans are separate from animals, thinking, etc., while Homo sapiens can be treated like just another animal article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biological species are considered inherently notable. This article should discuss the biology and the place of Homo sapiens in the tree of life. Human can be left to discuss the anthropological/cultural aspects of the species. --Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this obscurantism immediately. An article or not, but the title is occupied since the time immemorial (not later than since October 2001 as an article, and as a redirect since 2005), and its deletion is not an option if only because of history keeping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct perspective on a superlatively notable topic. -- Scray (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per criterion 1 of WP:SK: the nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. He knows that the subject is notable. He should have used a merge proposal. Regardless of that, the ambiguity of the definition of "human" makes "Homo sapiens" a better place to describe specific differences of H. sapiens from other hominids. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to human evolution and redirect this article to human, which is the already-existing article for the species Homo sapiens. This is an utterly redundant WP:CFORK, though with very little in it that isn't duplication. Articles on a species can be named by either the scientific or common name, so human is appropriately named. -- 202.124.73.8 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refocus to more biological/taxonomic concepts per above. Ansh666 06:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a scientific term, with background history of name, and for taxonomy relation to others, such as Homo habilus or Homo erectus and other primates. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to human. While I do see potential scope for a separate article, this article would need to be spun off carefully from the existing articles (human, human evolution), with a clear and agreed upon purpose. I feel that if there is to be a separate article, it would involve a non-trivial rearrangement of content since the current version of the article under discussion has no content that is not already covered better elsewhere. For now, the best solution seems to be to redirect to human, and then if and when an editor has the will to undertake the task, to obtain consensus at Talk:Human on what the scope of homo sapiens ought to be, and what content should be moved there. But AfD is much too blunt an instrument to deal with content matters like these, and in the short term our readers are clearly better served by having homo sapiens redirect to human. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:40, 10 July 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. Article also salted, given the likelihood of recreation against consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jordan Older

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

I am concerned that the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I have gone over each of its current citations and here are my conclusions:

Cite #1, which is used five times in the article, references an article on the website "futebolinterior.com.br". The site's content appears to consist mostly of tables of soccer matches— its articles are pulled in from other web sites, and it does not appear to have any original publication content or editorial staff of its own. It's principal draw is for people looking to see which team beat which in year X, and it is plastered with advertisements. Furthermore, I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source. My web search on the ___domain produced a list of statistical information about the site (number of visits per month, estimated value in US$, etc.), but nothing about its role as an independent source of reliable news on anything.

All of that wouldn't matter so much if the citation had an author. Instead, the author of the piece is "Agência Futebol Interior," which sounds to me a lot like "futebol interior", etc. Given the autobiographical nature of the piece, it might easily have been composed by the subject of the Wikipedia article himself.

"Cite" #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.

Cite #3 is a legitimate citation to a legitimate newspaper. However, the article it links to is not about the subject of the Wikipedia article, but rather to a player that he helped get to Germany. It could be used to help establish the notability of THAT individual, but cannot be used to establish the notability of the article's current subject.

Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.

Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information.

Cite #6 is a link to a poll result. According to the page itself, in order to appear in the poll result, a person has to have received more then one vote from a "fan" during an open voting period. Jordan Older appears at the very bottom of the table as a person who got at least two votes in the poll. It does not say how many votes he received, and in any case appearing on a table such as this does not exactly constitute "coverage" because there is no "article" here. (Frankly, if this citation does anything, it rather embarrassingly indicates how NON-notable Older is.)

Cite #7 is a link to a table of match information. Again, there is no article here, just table of scores. Like any such table or a business listing in a telephone directory, it does not go towards establishing notability.

Cite #8 is a link to the Ventura Film Festival website— not an independent source.

Cite #9 is to a legitimate newspaper, but the newspaper article it links to does not mention the article's subject. It is a news article about West Side Story.

Cite #10 is to a legitimate news article— about the Ventura Film Festival. Older is briefly mentioned in the article, but he is not its subject. This kind of passing reference cannot be used to establish notability.

My own additional and independent review of evidence of notability did not produce anything that would constitute multiple reliable third-party sources. Furthermore, given the tone and style of the article and the fact that its principal author has no edit history other than its creation and maintenance, I am concerned that this individual may have a conflict of interest. This, combined with the insubstantial nature of the 10 citations the article currently includes, moves me to propose that the article be considered for deletion. Also please note that the article was already nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax shortly after its creation, and the nomination failed (the article was and is not a hoax— its subject still doesn't appear to be notable, however). KDS4444^Talk 05:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am a great supporter of American football, but I don't quite understand the objections made here. First of all, User:KDS4444 claims that the article does not meet the notability standards while, on the contrary, the notability guideline says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable."

Cite #7 clearly provides that the subject was the part of a fully professional league (USL is listed in the WikiProject fully professional leagues). Irrespective of whether cite # 7 is a table or an editorial article, it clearly establishes that the subject was a player who has appeared in a fully professional league, thus meeting the Wikipedia notability standards.

I have gone over each of the objections of User:KDS4444 and here are my views:

Cite #1: User:KDS4444 claims that the articles of this website are pulled from some other sources and that the website does not have any original publications. I searched the Alexa.com website and came to know that a site ranking 489 in Alexa (sites under 1000 are highly authoritative like the New York Times) regularly uses content from and links to the news articles of the Futebol Interior web site ( http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/ ) One such example can be seen here --> http://bbs.hupu.com/4907578.html

The example above helps prove the fact that http://www.futebolinterior.com.br is an independent source of reliable news, and can be used to judge the notability of the subject.

Cite #2: Shows that the subject's team was in the Serie A, which qualifies it as notable because it is listed as a "fully professional league".

Cite #3: The purpose of the cite is to help establish the fact that the subject has played for South America, Europe and North America. An excerpt from the source provides: “Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe, and he believed that Ledesma possessed the talent to make the transition overseas.” That clearly establishes the notability of the subject. I don’t understand the comments of User:KDS4444 about how it does NOT develop notability at all! It clearly does establish subject notability here.

Cite #4 : The information in the reference provides that he has played in the top Brazilian Football League. Again I’m unable to understand how it is a mistake!

Cite #5: It might not be the most reliable source, but it does provide valuable information and backs up the information saying the same thing as the other references. Nothing wrong with that!

Cite #6: First of all, Soccer America is one of the most esteemed poles in the country, and secondly popularity and notability are two entirely different things. A very notable player may get the least votes, but that doesn’t mean he is not notable. Among all the England players, if Emile Heskey (or any other player) gets the least votes, he still remains notable. In fact, a player who is the least popular in one poll may be the most popular in the other. Further, if you know your football, this list is only comprised of American football legends, each and every one of them. So being low on the list full of legends is not so bad!

Citation #7: Well, this is the official website of USL and it clearly provides that Jordan Older played in (at least one) fully professional league, thus meeting the notability standards.

Citation #8 & #9: Well, every citation does not prove notability. The primary purpose of the references is to help the reader further pursue the article and reference the other claims about the film festival.

Citation #10: Article states: “(The Ventural Film Festival) Started by Jordan Older in 2004, the event is now a volunteer-based organization that donates a majority of the profits to environmental issues such as forest and ocean preservation”. True, it’s not the main subject of the article; but it does tell that Older was the founder of this event. Thus, the purpose of the reference is fully served.

Overall, I think article had some minor issues, but User:KDS4444 should have focused on correcting them rather than search for the reasons to justify the deletion of the article. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia that have errors of tone or formatting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t notable, or they should be considered for deletion. Therefore, my consensus is KEEP I strongly object to the deletion of the article and request the volunteers to help improve this article by correcting the issues present in the tone and format of this article. Usmanwardag (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you look, he played in USL Premier Development League, which is an amateur league. That appears to be the only independent confirmation of him playing in an actual soccer game with an actual team.~~ Updated further down.LionMans Account (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I reviewed this article from AFC and found nothing wrong with it. Usmanwardag found notablility. Two reasons that push me towards "Keep". buff bills 7701 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as hoax removed) If you look, you won't find his name on any transfer lists. A soccer player who played in as many professional leagues as this person claims would appear there. He appears to be a self-promoter from what I've seen. LionMans Account (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionMans This article has already had the HOAX vote declined/denied. Please stick to the issue at hand which is notability. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the deletion of my article about Jordan Older. I respect your right to vote to delete it. However it's already been voted as NOT A HOAX. This issue is notability here. Please correct your argument to address this. Regarding your claim about not appearing on any transfer lists here is my logic. I can find him on some but where do you find the transfer lists from the 1990's? If you could find a "transfer list" from then it wouldn't be on the Internet and you can't even find Eric Wynalda who is the #1 American soccer player of all time on a transfer list from 1993. Thanks again for your time. I think you should reconsider your logic and focus on the notability issue at hand.

To refute your hasty claims a quick search finds transfer lists and more stats, BOTH PROVE YOU WRONG

I respect your right to want to delete the article but more and more people are reading it and agreeing with me and my logic and voting to KEEP it.

KEEP Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over everything and all the references look solid. And I Googled him and found him appearing on several transfer lists and even talk of him being on the "DFL" transfer list back in 2004 (although this is not a newspaper report) it does refute your idea that he's not on any transfer lists.

I see nothing wrong with the article and find it interesting. KEEP Eragon.raju (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to find those. Although the third link is a message board (generally not admissible), the rest of the comments on the thread seem to suggest people don't have a high opinion of him. The first two (same link, different languages), shows a transfer in 2005 from A-League (1995–2004)San Diego Flash (which folded in 2001) to Major Indoor Soccer League (2001–08)San Diego Sockers (2001–04), which folded in 2004. No team of those names played again until 2009. Just makes me skeptical. LionMans Account (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if people have a high opinion of him; popularity is not one of the inclusion criteria. Notability is, and as there are several references stating that he's played in professional leagues he seems to meet that one. I think, to justify deleting the article, you're going to have to demonstrate that those sources are wrong and back it up with appropriate RS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That message board is full of articles just about the subject, but who cares? They are just gossip for the most part and not admissable. The point still proves, by your own rules that the subject meets Association Football notability by having appeared in a fully professional league (and more than one even) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Association_football

Knowing this why don't you change your vote to KEEP ? It's a simple matter of yes did he appear in a fully professional league?. The fact is (ref #7 alone proves beynd a shadow of doubt) that he did! End of story. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed in the interest of keeping this discussion readable for people with less than half an hour of free time. Doesn't mean the stuff in here isn't worth reading. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Score 6-2 in favor of KEEP. There are 6 KEEP and 2 delete if you count the anonymous post on the talk page here and C.Fred voting to keep that it WAS NOT A HOAX. And there are maybe one or two more who protected it as not a hoax as well. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Score isn't kept. The main issue is whether this article meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Articles stay here for roughly 7 days (sometimes more) unless they get speedy deleted (which this one won't). LionMans Account (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a zen master. Notability for Football Association players is defined as having played in a fully professinal league. The subject of my article has played in more than one fully professional league. This is satisfied by reference #7 from the fully professional USL league (and the other leagues but they aren't even needed to establish subject's notability, they are just extra padding for my claims.) And yes, it seems the score is kept. The deletion of articles is defined by Wikipedia to be determined by the consensus (score) of the editors who say KEEP or DELETE. Here is the football notability link for you. The links you posted WP:N and WP:BIO both link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Association_football it says in item 2 that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." and all of the subjects leagues are listed in the list of fully professional leagues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. Thanks again for your help in fortifying my proof and claims. The issue is really simply proved by reference #7, but like I said there are 9 other references supporting and providing further proof from 3rd party, reputable, newspapers and magazines and official team and league web sites. At this point I feel that you should read your own links (as well as the transfer lists) that you posted and change your vote to KEEP. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a reference [18] showing he played for San Diego Gauchos, who played in ~~USL Premier Development League, an amateur league.~~ Seriously, calm down. LionMans Account (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionsMans Account Errrrr- wrong. You must be looking at the wrong link. The page linked clearly says USL Professional League and that is clearly listed on the list of fully professional leagues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues

Keep trying, maybe you'll say that the Serie A where Pele and Neymar played isn't professional too? In fact the subject lived and played in the same city as Pele and on the same team as Neymar. Please stop with the horsing around when you've been proven wrong a real man admits it. Change your vote to KEEP Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, USL Second Division (I was incorrect). At the time though, they were in the third tier for US Soccer. I was able to find information showing he played in one other game. However, it is still extremely difficult to show notablity (other than an article simply saying he played in 2 games). LionMans Account (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionMans Account] Why do you keep saying things like this when you know they aren't true? http://soccerstats.us/bios/jordan-older/ shows 4 games.

Here is another FULLY PRO LEAGUE GAME he appeared in: http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435

and another http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529

This is actually a lot of references for small defunct pro soccer league from 2003 in America. The main reference is the feature article from the top soccer newspaper in Brazil http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol

This is also good and says he played professional in Europe and Brazil and is a VALID reference since it is a full newspaper article: http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html

And just to remind you. Every team this player has played for is listed as a fully professional league. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues

Brazil BRA CONMEBOL Campeonato Brasileiro Série A[17] Yes

Campeonato Brasileiro Série B[17] Yes

Campeonato Paulista Série A1[18][dead link] Yes

I appreciate your efforts and thank you for letting me provide the correct information for you so you will know the truth. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference shows him playing for the Gauchos when they were in a professional league. If you look at it you'll find a drop-down to let you find matches by league. The league for that game is USL PRO, ergo Older played in a professional league.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information you have is incorrect. The San Diego Gauchos played in the USL Professional League in 2003 when the subject appeared for them. In later years they dropped to the amateur league. You are seriously uninformed and mis-representing the facts again. Just read the link from reference #7 it clearly says USL "Pro Soccer League" and is dated 2003. Fussballspieler11 (talk) Here is the link for reference #7. http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html I have other ones too that clearly say USL "Pro Soccer League" where the subject played. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)' Note: even the URL says "uslpro" while the PDL (amateur) part of their web site for the amateur teams has a different sub-section of the site noted by a different URL, differen label on the page, and a different banner that says PDL not USL PRO.[reply]

Shown here

http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/ <-- amateur

http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html <-- professional

You've now spent over 8 hours trying to prove the unprovable to get my article deleted. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-pro player who lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are ample RS confirming that Older has played professionally. The references are a mess, but cite 7 is a record for a professional league game he took part in. Cite 3 is an RS and it states quite clearly that he has played professionally. I'm also concerned about inaccurate statements by some of those nominating for deletion. For example KDS4444 claims that cite 4 is "an article about soccer in German." I thought I'd have a look at it, because I speak German, but guess what? It's not in German; it's in Norwegian, as far as I can tell. I don't see how he can disregard a reference without even being able to tell what language it's in. Older is hardly a world-class player but there seems little doubt that he's played professionally, so that makes him notable by WP's criteria. To be honest this request looks frivolous.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970: I dismissed this reference cursorily because I saw it being used in the article as a citation for the musical West Side Story, which it obviously is not. In that sense, the language in which it is written is utterly irrelevant: the reference has nothing to do with a musical. Did you read my comment on this citation in the initial proposal for deletion? If so, then why not address this? If not, then... can I ask you to do so before you offer additional commentary? (Really, at this point, the strident nature of the article's creator is just giving me a headache. I am hoping you are more rational but am surprised that you don't recognize your Broadway shows from the 1970s (see, that last bit is a joke, meant to make you chuckle, Yes? Nuthin' more, nuthin' less)). KDS4444^Talk 21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Norwegian either, but Swedish. Which I know for a fact since I'm half Swedish, and fluent in that language. The website is a team website for "Ljungskile SK", a team that at that time played in the Swedish third division, and Jordan Older is only mentioned in passing at the end of a story about a match between "Ljungskile SK" and "Mjällby IF" in 2005, as a player that was to be tested by Ljungskile. There's also another story on the same website that mentions Jordan Older in passing, just saying that he wasn't good enough so they weren't interested in his services. It is in other words a reference that does not establish any notability for him. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a not-a-vote, just a comment. I am the administrator who declined the request to speedy delete the article as a hoax. Because some sources validated claims in the article, it did not appear to be a blatant hoax, so CSD G3 did not apply. I had reservations about whether there were enough sources above the local level to meet WP:GNG and indicated that the article might wind up here. I also posted a message at WikiProject Football to bring in subject matter experts. I have not, and do not at this time, express an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in this AfD proceeding; my actions only related to speedy deletion criteria G3 and A7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about a non-notable footballer. While it appears that he played a few minutes in the USL Second Division with the Gauchos (probably not in a fully-pro league), there is simply no evidence that this article could ever satisfy the GNG. The Ventura County Star article isn't significant coverage, and it cannot be considered verification of the claim that Older played in a fully-pro league. We went through this with the earlier version of the article in 2007 (it was substantially the same). Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed further lengthy discussion. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ User:Jogurney Thanks for your comments, but you need to look over the references again. Your comments don't match and since 2007 all the references are new. So maybe you need to be updated? Some points: 1) the Ventura County Star is not used as a reference for any of the notability, only to support the Ventura Film Festival information. It was never used to claim anything about soccer. 2) There are three(3) independent newspapers covering and supporting that the subject played in a "fully-pro" league. It's a simple concept. Either he appeared in a game in a league listed as fully pro (he did) or not. That's all that's required to be notable according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL#Association_football . The league is listed as a fully pro league, so is the Brazilian Serie A and Paulista Serie A, that's 3 fully-pro leagues verified by indpendent sources. 3) you said the the leauge is not fully pro? Why then is it then listed on Wikipedia as being fully pro? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues 4) you are mis-representing the number of minutes played, it's surely not a "few minutes" http://soccerstats.us/bios/jordan-older/ shows its 4 games in 2003 for the USL2 during the players retirement years, his mid 30's 5) What are your motives for down playing this players accomplishments over a 5 year period? 6) Futebol Interior is not a local newspaper it covers all of the top soccer and sports news in Brazil and is one of the top 900 most visited web sites in all of Brazil and is ranked as very athoritative by Alexa. This is why I used it for the first reference. It's the most clear and impressive reference and then is followed by the Palos Verdes News, then followed by the official game report from the USL Pro leauge. That's 3 qualifying references that aren't just "local news". It's been 6 years since you last called to delete this article so please update yourself on the new references since you are clearly off a little bit by saying the Ventura County Star was used, at all to support any soccer claims in my article, because it was not in anyway used for this. I'm not calling you blind but you must have mis-read things. Thanks again for taking time to review my article. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. A user should only have one !vote (keep, delete, etc.) on the page. If they change their mind, they should strike out the old recommendation. Since you've duplicated your keep recommendation across multiple comments, I've struck this one. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks C.Fred. Here's a communication I just posted to Jogurny's talk page:

User:Jogurney I'm concerened that you didn't really read the article and it's references.
You made some very inacurrate comments:
1) Ventura County Star was used to reference soccer claims
- this never happened, the Ventura County Star articles were in reference to the subject being the founder of the Ventura Film Festival and listing the celebrity guests, nothing about soccer here
2) subject played in "probably not in a fully-pro league"
- reference 1 lists 3 teams in the Paulista Serie A and 1 team in the Brazilian Serie A, these are THE biggest leagues in Brazil and are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- reference 7 lists the USL Pro Soccer League (USL 1 or 2) where the subject played 4 games in 2003, these are not the biggest leagues in the USA but they are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- reference 3 lists that the subject played professionally in Brazil and Europe and so much so that he is able to orchestrate player transfers of local kids into the German Bundesliga
3) the official Sao Paulo FC fan site/blog from 1999 lists the same 3 teams as the Futebol Interior feature article, which I found on the first page of Futebol Interior
- reference 1 lists 3 teams in the Paulista Serie A and 1 team in the Brazilian Serie A, these are THE biggest leagues in Brazil and are listed as fully professional at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues
- it also lists him as playing along site Sao Paulo FC star defender in Wilson
4) You're quick to support the deletion of this players article, 6 years later, when all the references are new and you clearly didn't read them (based on your mistaken claims) so I'm wondering if you have some kind of vendetta? 6 years is a long time for you to be doing this.
Thanks for your time, never the less. I respect your right to disagree.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Comment. I don't appreciate the tone of your reply, but let me address your concerns. I mentioned the VC Star article because I found it while searching for online sources about Jordan Older. The author states that Older was a former pro soccer player, but it provides no evidence that he played even a single competitive match or that the leagues he might have played in were fully-pro. To date, the only league I can be confident he appeared in the USL Second (with the Gauchos) for 100+ minutes. The is very borderline even on a strict interpretation that one second of play in a fully-pro league (if indeed the USL Second was fully-pro at the time) is enough to meet NFOOTBALL (despite loads of AfDs which have held that the GNG needs to be met). While I understand that there are sources noting Older was under contract at fully-pro Brazilian clubs, there is no indication that he ever appeared for one of them in a competitive match in a fully-pro league. He might have trained with the reserves, or even appeared in a friendly, but there is nothing to show that he played in Serie A or the Paulista championship. As it stands, this article has different sources than the one in 2007, but they go no further in demonstrating compliance with NFOOTBALL or more importantly the GNG. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment'. Here is a more recent example of an American soccer player from the USL lower divisions that signed with a Brazilian professional soccer club, yet never made an appearance in anything but a reserve match. It's not so difficult to believe that Older had a similar experience. Jogurney (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources so fails WP:GNG, which outweighs the possibility of him barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL. The US lower leagues are only barely fully-pro now, I very much doubt they were 15-20 years ago when this guy was playing. Note to those !voting keep - to pass WP:NFOOTBALL you have to actually play (not just be signed to a roster), and you have to play in a fully-professional league, not just for a professional team. Giant Snowman 08:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse more. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ User:GiantSnowman There is no doubt that the subject did play in several fully professional leagues Proof here:

REPORTED IN NEWSPAPERS AND FULLY PRO LEAGUE SITES:

http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23496 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529 (Offical fully professional soccer league) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html (respected print and online newspaper) http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol (highly regarded #1 soccer news site from Brazil and ranked highly on Alexa) http://web.archive.org/web/20020209014728/http://www.tricolornet.com.br/noticias/arquivo1999/990717.htm (Official team blog for Sao Paulo FC says he played along side Wilson in BRAZIL and for 3 fully pro Brazilian Teams)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if some of the users voting for the deletion of this page are equally active and/or critical about other football pages/articles/players on Wikipedia as well? Just a quick search on the history of those users and I found "NO!". I have watched a lot of football and I keep on searching players on Wikipedia, never did I find such a heated discussion! To me, it's apparent that some of the users on this page are working on a hidden agenda, especially when you suddenly appear out of nowhere and tag a page for deletion. Usmanwardag (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you clearly are not a member of WP:FOOTBALL then, as I am - if you were, you would see a high turnover of non-notable articles getting deleted (not that that has any impact whatsoever on this discussion). What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! Giant Snowman 12:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's wikis for you - everyone gets to play. In any case the issue is whether or not Older meets the notability criteria of having played in a professional league, not who wants the article kept/deleted/tattooed on Alyson Hannigan's delectable buttocks. Really, it's simple. Has he played in a professional league? If so he's notable; if not he isn't. It looks like he has, so what's the argument about?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is satisfied, there are 10 sources. There are 2 sources saying he played in the top leagues in Brazil, there are 3 links from the official USL Pro web site, there are 2 sources outlining that he played professionally in Brazil and Europe. There are 2,834 american soccer player articles on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_soccer_players A quick glance at them show that :::MOST::: lack the same level of references as my article. And many USL Pro players are listed, some using the same kind of game day stats that I have used and some are blatant fakes with MLS links that go to dead links. Here are a few from my subject's area:

I could literally go on ALL DAY listing players with 1) less reliable references 2) less proveable playing experience 3) less wp:gng i.e. less coverage in the newspapers. This is mute point. You guys are trying every avenue to delete my article and its becoming obvious.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not a member of WP:FOOTBALL, and as I said, I am just an ordinary reader who has a lot of interest in football. I search for a lot of other articles (mostly sports related) on Wikipedia, and have never found such debates going on there. I've also seen a number of pages where there are minor issues but that's not the way things work. The general rule is: if you find an issue, correct it. If you can't, then wait for some other volunteer. This page might not be up to the Wikipedia's standard but is certainly notable! Usmanwardag (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 12:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "certainly notable"? Has it received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Giant Snowman 12:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on listing a number of sources here but here's one for your review. http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol Jordan Older is the main subject of this article and so, this is not just a passing reference. Furthermore, http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/ is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. You can see here a number of wikipedia entries that link to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=futebolinterior.com.br&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 I sincerely hope you will objectively look at this discussion and change your vote to KEEP. Usmanwardag (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article never mentions that Older played in a competitive match for any of those clubs. As I noted above, it is quite possible that he signed for the clubs but only trained and played in the reserves. If he had played in competitive matches, it's much more likely that reliable online Brazilian soccer sources like Globo Esporte or UOL would have some mention of him. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23435 Please see the match information. Older played for seven minutes in a game of a fully professional league. http://www.uslsoccer.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::72011+Elements/Display+E+47107+Stats/+23529 Older played for 26 minutes in a game of a fully professional league. Do I need anything else to prove that he has played in a competitive match for those clubs? Please see cite #6 as well, in which Older was a part of a poll, which ranked the players on the basis of popularity. It was a pole of really competitive players (legends you can say), and only those would have got in who were actually playing the games (and were not just only reserves). Usmanwardag (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those links don't mention Paulista, União São João or Portuguesa Santista matches in 1994 or 1998 (like the cited article does). No one is questioning whether Older played a few minutes for San Diego Gauchos in 2003, so please don't try to confuse the issue. Jogurney (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I dare say that you're trying to confuse things here? Older has clearly played more than once in the matches of a fully professional league. Can you please go to the bottom of the thread and see my clarification? Usmanwardag (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this page was tampered with and changed today or yesterday and changes so that my links above don't go directly to the USL Pro Leagues anymore, but the USL Pro Leagues and the Brazil leagues, in which the subject is proven to have played, are still listed as fully professional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got a diff (link to the specific edit) for that? I don't see any evidence of ELs or references changed in the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do the "diff" to get the past versions of pages. I've only been on this site for a couple days. But here is what happened:

The page that was tampered/changed Wikipage is the one that lists the fully professional leagues and was center point to my notability claim for my subject. What happened was the format changed. It's still there, same leagues, but they deleted the "defunct league category" as far as I can tell and that was one of my main links and now it doesn't work so its a blow to my articles defense and a plus to the deleters because it makes me look crazy when I say click here to see the list of the leagues and now it just goes to the top of the page. You can see in this page how many times I linked to the #Defunct_Leagues has and to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues this link used to have a defunct leagues section that I based most of my defense upon and, what do you know, its gone today. In short this link used to work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Defunct_Leagues and now it doesnt. Thanks again for your time and energy.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first reference is from a major news portal that has MOST COMPREHENSIVE LIVE SOCCER NEWS AND SCORES IN THE COUNTRY OF BRAZIL

I also want to let everyone know about the authority of my first reference. The news agency is called FUTEBOL INTERIOR. Most of you aren't familiar with Brazilian culture or sporting/soccer news so you will not know this source. But it is used often on Wikipedia as a source/reference. The translation is not "Indoor Soccer" like the machine translator at Google first says. It means "Inside Football" and it is a double entendre because it started out, over 10 years ago, only covering the area of the interior/inner parts of the Sao Paulo state of Brazil. Now it has global coverage, live chats, live scores, live game transmissions, columns, blogs, features, many expert soccer journalists from all parts of Brazil and the world. It's one of the best, if not the best place to get news about every major soccer team and league in Brazil.

Here is more about it from it's ABOUT page translated into English: (be sure to read the last line)

About Us
The Portal Inside Soccer is the most comprehensive of its kind, giving wide coverage to professional clubs from all over Brazil, as well as the world.
With over 10 years of existence, many new features are visible, such as hot sites and tools, providing information to the visitors so easier and attractive.
Great events of football, Brazil and the world, are also featured in most of the country Portal Football.
Between competitions disclosed, many exclusively, are: State (all), the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A, B, C and D; Cup Brazil, South American Cup, Libertadores Cup, as well as major European Championships.
Another tool is the consolidated Score Live, the most comprehensive in the country, presenting results online (in real time) of all State (exclusive) and all major competitions involving clubs and the Brazilian national team. There are more than 18 million hits per month.
This service is also available on Mobile Systems and WAP (mobile), leading information and entertainment will at any time and where the Internet is.
With high quality journalistic content, Soccer Inside achieved credibility and opened new spaces for the news. And today, provides information for major newspapers and sports agencies in the country, besides being a source of research bodies throughout Brazil.

Here is a recent feature article that appeared for almost a week on their front page: http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol Fussballspieler11 (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jogurney

1) are you being misleading by saying a "few" minutes? if you read the ussoccerstats.us you'll see its not just a few
2) there are plenty of reliable, 3rd party news references listing the Brazil A, and Paulista A teams, stating he played there, I suggest you read them, they are even FEATURES talking only about the subject and thus also satisfying the WP:GNG rules
3) there is other wide coverage of the subject in other well respected and reliable news and magazine publications, they are listed too, I suggest you read them too
4) it appears you are focusing on diminishing my subject's career and his reputation by minimizing his notability by using words like few and amateur, when your statements are completely the opposite of exaggeration
5) you are the main man in the deletion campaign, having been trying for 6 years to get his article deleted and you use the same wording as Lionmans Account "few" and "amateur" when these have already been struck out by a Wikipedia admin C.fred.

Myself and a few other honest Wikipedia editors/authors are already suspicious as to why you are spending 6 years targeting this subject when thousands of less notable player articles exist.(I listed just a few but don't want to be on here all day copy/pasting lesser american soccer players. Just go look in the american soccer player listing here on Wikipedia. Why do you deny the rules of Wikipedia stating that a player is notable if having appeared in a fully professional league? and on and on and on... and you're saying the same thing as 6 years ago when you cleary muffed your first critique appearing to having not even read the new references. Your actions are beyond my belief, honestly. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Claims like mr X played in the Brazilian Serie A can easily be verified/falsified using a database like this one [19]. As you can see it goes back a very long time before there was such a thing as internet. Cattivi (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No results. Giant Snowman 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a more detailed search on him, or rather three searches, with both his name and the name of each of the three clubs in Brazil that he seems to claim having played for (clubs that are mentioned in this story on futebolinterior.com, a story that apart from mentioning which clubs he claims to have played in has nothing to do with his career as a footballer), Paulista, União São João and Portuguesa Santista, with the same result, no matches played. For good measure I also took a look at those three clubs on the Portuguese Wikipedia (I speak a fairly decent Spanish so understanding written Portuguese is not a big problem), and it turns out that neither of them played in the Brazilian first division during the time that Older claims to have played for them (1994 in both Paulista and União São João and 1998 in Portuguesa Santista). Meaning that he couldn't possibly have played in the first division. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman just deleted TWO important comments I made. I'm officially calling foul play now and would like him punished for this and my article protected. It's simply wrong and unfair to not allow another Wikipedia editor to have free comment on his own page. As far as I can tell he has no more rights than I do. Even if he is an admin I am calling foul play, unfair block of my freedom of speech, whatever its called on here. It's simple NOT OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect when you crapflood this thread (as well as another userpage)? The only comment worth adding back was about the person with a similar name from the database. Might I suggest posting a link to the game the person played? LionMans Account (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fussballspieler11:, yes, I removed this wall of text (including copyrighted information!) as it was disruptive. Most of your posts here have been similar (though not quite as extreme) and if you don't start contributing calmly, concisely, and without displaying OWNership issues then I will ask an uninvolved admin to intervene here. Giant Snowman 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed another comment that was short and concise. My long wall of text was important information to refute the claims of no WP:GNG. So I posted many links to show over 200 popular forum postings about my subject over around a decade of time. I also showed evidence of him playing in Brazil A, and Paulista A, but no one will see this now because you removed it, I feel unfairly.

I've made a complaint already about you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you for the time to edit my article. I respect your right to disagree, but not your right to censor me.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the Globo Esporte match report showing an "Odair" played for União São João in Serie A during 1994 is evidence that Jordan Older played in the match (because it was a mispelling of his name) think again: Odair was born in Brazil. Jogurney (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been reading this discussion for quite some time now and it appears to me that some people are trying to say that Jordan Older is not notable because there isn't any proof that he has played in a competitive match of a fully professional league. http://www.lsk.se/default.asp?do=game_details&gameID=1111 This link refers to Jordan Older, that says that the team is excited to receive him and quotes "Jordan Older is a 33-year-old American who among other things played in the Brazilian top division". I think this makes it pretty clear that he has actually played for Brazilian top division and not just trained as a reserve. Plus, there are a couple of links I have already provided which show that he has played for over 100 minutes in another fully professional league.

And here is another link, just in case. http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html --> It quotes "Older, who has played professionally in Brazil and Europe, had founded King Sports Management and Ventura County FC to help young players realize their dream of playing professionally in Europe". Any football fan or any logical mind would accept the fact that these comments can be made only if the player has played professionally in a fully professional league and not just trained as some users on this page are saying. In a nutshell, Jordan Older has played in the competitive matches of more than one fully professional league. I hope this will clear up many things. Usmanwardag (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, many players are described as having "played in [league/country]" even though they were only signed to the roster as opposed to getting any on-field time. But that's irrelevant - while he might or might not pass WP:NFOOTBALL, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant, third-party coverage, and that is the deal-breaker here. Giant Snowman 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any example please? Can you give me the name of a single player who was described as having played in league/country but didn't spend a single minute on field? Irrespective of that, where does WP:NFOOTBALL say that a player has to actually spend some time on the field in order to be notable. I'm baffled here. In the above comment, I provided you the links in which Older was the primary subject, and those were not just passing references. So, how do you say he hasn't received significant third party coverage? Usmanwardag (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an absence of third party, reliable sources. The General notability guideline is not satisfied. - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, lacks sufficient RS, drama magnet. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that anything has changed since the original AfD. RS do not appear to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, and the subject definitely fails WP:GNG. Sources generally are either self-promotional, are not about the subject, or only mention the subject in passing. Taroaldo ✉ 00:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?? The article clearly meets notability. I do not want to provide the evidence in every comment I make, but my above comments can be seen for this purpose. The subject does have significant third-party coverage (Already explained above). So, what's the big deal? Usmanwardag (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the NYT article I posted about Adrian Melville above? His professional soccer experience in Brazil is likely very similar to Jordan Older's. Neither appears to have ever played in a competitive match for their Brazilian clubs. I'm not convinced the USL Second Division was fully-pro back in 2003 when Older played for the San Diego Gauchos, but even so, Older only made a few appearances (just over 100 minutes in total) which according to longstanding AfD consensus is not enough without passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your comparison is seriously illogical. We can never call Adrian Melville a professional player. He started his career in 2007 and finished in 2008. So, it's logical to say that he did not get to play in a competitive match. But that you can't say about an athlete who has played for more than one fully professional league and has done it for many years. So, what you are trying to suggest is that Older got signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues, got to play in each for more than a year (for 3-4 years in some) but never got to play a single competitive match?

That aside, did any reliable and independent news source call Adrian Melville a professional who played for a fully professional league? No. But, did any reliable and independent news source call Jordan Older a professional who played for a fully professional league? Yes. I think you have got my point. My humble request to you is stop toying with these legends. They deserve a mention in history, let them get one! Usmanwardag (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out again that these players and thousands of others have less RS (references/links/proof) than my article and all of them have played at only a lower level:

I'm done defending this article because what I type is quickly deleted by admins and I feel bullied at this point. Btw, Taroaldo, you've already been found out because you can't view the original article my friend! And some of the new sources are just from this year. So what you say is impossible. Btw, MrOllie, there are 10 references on this page and over 200 decade old forum posts and scores of newspaper articles. Btw, Gamaliel, I agree its a drama magnet but only because you fail to read the substantial references and admit they are valid. It's all there and I thank you all (all 20 or so people who care so much about my subject) to have examined his career with a fine toothed comb. I think its time for me to log off but I know that if I log back in after a few days more suspicious "deleters" will have commented on this 6 year old debate about a nothing soccer player who only played amateur soccer and who prevented a hostile take over of his film festival. Good day my friends and I hope you have no hard feelings. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate you spend your time attacking other editors rather than reading what they are saying. I did not read the original article, but I did read the original AfD [20], where editors clearly had serious concerns about the references. A review of the references from the current article, coupled with a Google search, reveals the same concerns. Therefore, nothing has changed. Taroaldo ✉ 00:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real quality sources to establish notability. The Banner talk 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the absence of third party, reliable sources. It definitely fails WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hello KDS4444 . I am a crazy supporter of football and am a reader of football related articles in Wikipedia. But in this scenario, I have to oppose to your decision as I think the article should be kept.

For #Cite 01: you have mentioned that: “I could find only one other Wikipedia article that has ever used it as a source.”

Please have a look at the following links. All of the articles below are using reference from Futebolinterior.com.br. So do you claiming that all of the articles are based on useless references? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] All the articles that are using references from Futebolinterior.com.br can be found below: [the articles]

For #Cite 02: You have claimed that Cite #2 is a link to another Wikipedia article. It should be a wikilink, not a reference.

But if you have a look at the following articles, you can easily see that the articles are using Wikilink as reference.

[1], [2] I have just given two examples. But many examples can easily be found, so whatever you claimed is inappropriate.

For #Cite 03: The newspaper article clearly states that Mr. Jordan Older is a professional and veteran football player. So, it certainly can be used for establishing the notability of the article's current subject.

For #Cite 04: You have said Cite #4 is an article about soccer in German; it is being used in this article as a reference for the 50th anniversary of West Side Story. If a mistake, then a mistake. But bizarre.

First of all, I have to say that the language is Swedish, not German. I have do the translation for you. Please go to the following Link: [4]. Here, you can clearly see that Mr Jordan Older has played in the Brazilian Top Division. So, this reference can also be used.

For #Cite 05: You said Cite #5 is a link to a team blog. Not a reliable independent source of information. Although it may not be a reliable source, it states that [Link (translated)] Jordan is a Striker as well as the name of the teams.

For #Cite 06: Jordan Older may not have received that many votes, but you can not claim that he is not notable. According to: Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2).

For #Cite 07: The citation indicates that Jordan has been a player of the team San Diego Gauchos. You have made the article nominated for deletion. But again, in accordance to Wikipedia’s rules for Wikipedia’s Notability for Football Association (Point-2), it is clearly stated that Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable.

For #Cite 08 and 09: These 2 citations were added to state about his present situation and what is he doing at present. Although they may not make him notable as a player, but they say what he is doing at present.

For #Cite 10: As the article is about Jordan Older and as it says that he started this film festival, this citation can be added in favor of his article.

So, after mentioning the things above, I think the article meets the criteria of Notability of Wikipedia and thus, it should be kept and not be deleted. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for readability. Once again, doesn't mean that there aren't any useful comments in here. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make a brief summary of things as I see them now. I was very upset when I spent an hour copy and pasting 200 references proving logically, in my personal opinion, the fame and notability of my subject only to have them deleted within a few minutes of posting them by a new admin who suddenly came into the discussion when we already had one admin, do we really need two admins and 20 or so editors? But, yes, that upset me. Mostly because I spent a long time researching the information and because the admin is also one of the "deleters" of my article so he's got his opinion and he's deleting evidence against it and... he also deleted another important and very short comment I made. I still don't think this is ok, but I apologize if in my astonishment of having an hour of my life trashed I may have appeared angry. Sincere apology and I hope we can all be friends. I respect everyone's right to delete and disagree with me. It's a free world. I think I have a way that we can all be happy about this and I will delete my article myself if the main detractors/deleters can come to an objective list of what is required for wp:gng and association football notability. Because I honestly am baffled how anyone can say my subject is not notable. Fans are still posting about him a decade after he retired on major soccer forums that I read around the world (dont read this as I'm saying its a viable proof of anything, its just a supporting fact to his fame and notability.)

So can the deleters make a list of what exact criteria need to be met to satisfy wp:gng and football notability and be specific? This will also be a learning opportunity for me. Like I said I will delete my article myself if I can see my own failure to understand something. This will save 20+ people from another 6 years of pointless debate maybe.

Here is what I have read in the form of a probably check list to satisfy notability: :::(✔ means it's proved in my opinion):::

✔ 1) played in a fully professional league or a national cup (reference #7 proves this according to GiantSnowman, even barely) and subject's Facebook shows another full pro USL team 1 year before the start of the MLS and that he played in the Swiss Cup in 1993 which is a national level event, I read that national cups also warrant notability.

✔ 2) GNG Checklist:

✔* 1. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

I see 2 recent newspaper articles that have high reputations and are tamper proof and reliable. 2 recent newspaper articles about a guy who retired over 10 years ago is notable. I also see 200 fan forum discussions about him or including him on a popular forum, and given that the subjet is in his 40's and soccer players retire at around 30, this is notable. Even if many or most are poking fun at him, its still notable. I also see on his Facebook more news paper clippings and front pages sports spreads that are only about the subject, not just mentioning him, and that he was in TV commercials from Intel, Pioneer/Phillps, Reebok, and I see blogs on 1st division A professional soccer teams in other countries talking about him along side super famous players. One of the blogs was an interview with an ex Manchester United player who was the coach of team in Sweden. The Manchester United player said that the subject "played in the top league in brazil" or similar to that. I see also that the subject is in pictures with Pele and David Beckham recently as well as with Academy Award winning celebrities at his film festival. You can see videos of him with these stars too. I'm not saying that all or any of this is a valid "reference", I'm saying that it shows "significant" coverage, given that almost no Americans played professional soccer in the 1990's and USA had no MAJOR professional league and almost no sports coverage, this is huge coverage, not just significant. It's certainly more coverage than the list of example Wikipedia articles on other soccer players in his area (see my list above for the list.) His coverage and playing level was a level higher than each of the players in this list, yet their articles remain and my subject is up for deletion and suffers being called and amateur who played a few minutes with an amateur team by the deleters. So we have here: several reptutable, reliable news sources, tv commercials, live radio interviews, hundreds of forum posts even decades after he retired poking fun at him, also many wanting to know who is Jordan Older and how did he play in Brazil when no other american could do it, he mingles with celebrities, he has his own film festival, his family is full of famous celebs, not to mention he's now an agent who is able to place local american kids in major pro teams in Germany because of his extensive professional playing career in Europe. Keep in mind there are several hall of fame americans who tried to make a team in Brazil and failed. My subject played for 3. This is more than enough to warrant notability so I give it a check.

✔* 2. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

Futebol Interior(FI) featured the subject on the front page of its popular Brazilian sports site and wrote a long article about the subject. FI is used in hundreds of other references in Wikipedia so it should be ok here too. No original research is needed (like in the forum posts which arent valid references) to "extract" the information about the subject because the entire article is about him and it was on the front page for a number of days just a few months ago when I found it. This is reference #1. PV News story is half quotes from the subject because its about his success as an agent. It's easy to extract the content about the subject from this reference. This is reference #3. I also have a radio interview of the subject on a popular radio station where he is interviewed about his playing days. Check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Ambriz -> this player's article lacks complete proof of him playing in Switzerland and he only played 4 games as well in the USL1 fully professional league and 9 games in the amateur PDL USL league (the other players on my list are just a few out of thousands with similarly less notability than my subject)

Anyway I have 2 soccer sources that require little research to read about him and many recent film festival references about him that are easy to extract the content so I say this is satisfied. Check.

✔* 3. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

My main sources are professional news agencies and all edited. Even the Sao Paulo FC blog was written by one of Brazil's top journalists with high journalistic integrity. Check.

✔* 4. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

There are plenty of these on his Facebook and in my references. Check.

✔ * 5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]

My subject is not affiliated with any of the news sources and only to the teams and blogs because he was on the team or considered for the team. None of it is paid advertising, none is self published except for the film festival web site profile which he is the director of the Ventura Film Festival, but that is just to show he is the director of the Ventura Film Festival, nothing else, and none are press releases. Check

✔ * 6. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I guess this is where its up to the admins and editors to decide. My vote is obvious since I am a huge fan of early American soccer players. They were paving the path for the players of today when no one was looking. My article is not just an indiscriminate collection of information and is very popular by the number of editors and admins discussing it. This is really up to the admins I think? I say - Check.

✔ * 7. A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

I believe there are maybe the same amout of KEEPS and DELETES, perhaps DELETES are winning now, I haven't counted. But there are several KEEPS and the original approver of the article voted to KEEP. Again I think its up to the admins here. I say - Check.

(above is copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline)

So there is my :::✔check::: list for Association Football notability and WP:GNG notability. It all basically comes down to the hard facts listed in ref#1#3#4#5#7 and the opinion of the editors and mostly the admins.

GiantSnowman already agreed that Association Football notability is met (barely) and like I said if the deleters can come up with some specific reasons why WP:GNG is not met for a popular soccer retired soccer player who runs a popular film festival (the largest film festival in Ventura County, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country, I did my research), and if the specific reasons make sense logically to me I will delete my own article (if that's possible.) I think this is fair. One the same note, if there are no specific reasons why conditions 1 through 5 (since 6 & 7 are up to the whim of the admins) aren't met then I think a gentleman would agree to step down and keep the article. I'm over my anger at my comments being deleted and don't want to spend hours each day saying the same thing for 4 more days and don't want around 20 other interested editors to waste more time so this sounds like a good solution to me? I respect everyone's right to disagree and even to delete my article or to ban/delete my account. I just hope everyone uses logic and is honest since God is watching. I hope everyone is having a great night/day and let me know your specific reasons why a nothing amateur soccer player and nobody film festival owner is not notable, guys and gals... Fussballspieler11 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that the discussion here is not a ballot, and that the number of "votes" for delete or keep is completely irrelevant. Completely. Let's think about that for a minute.... The number of times you see "Delete" or "Keep" has no bearing on anything happening here. None. This process is not a collection of votes, it is one of argument based on policy. This is a fundamental aspect of the AfD process that doesn't seem to be making it across. My stating it again here seems likely to fall on deaf ears, but hey, I'm an optimist! Wait, no, that's totally a lie... Wait, what do I mean again? Oh yeah. We aren't voting here. <Shouted into the wind> Also: my eyes hurt. KDS4444^Talk 15:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your plea is going to have no effect. Lots of people making delete comments without doing the courtesy to actually base them on logic. Someone tell them that this is a discussion, not a poll! Someone?? Usmanwardag (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning through, most of the delete !votes cite policy or guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:RS, etc.); I don't see anything atypical with them. Most of the keep !votes also focus on the merits of the article, although there have been one or two detours into the land of WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is to be avoided in deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm also placing an abritrary section break below this branch of the discussion as a courtesy to new commenters. The AfD is pushing 100k, so that's a lot of scrolling to preview an edit.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred actually the deleters and maybe even an admin first started to list "the other stuff" WP:OTHERSTUFF by saying that there are plenty of "others" deleted all the time. So why should a logical person not be able to say THE SAME reason in response; well in that case there are literally "thousands" of "other stuff" American soccer articles with less notability kept all the time, most 90% American players with Wikipedia articles can't compare to my subject's experience and news media coverage. Further, the WP:OTHERSTUFF says that, while they aren't enough on it's own, the other stuff comparison CAN BE USEFUL: (and it was started by the deleters so its only fair that both sides can use the same kind of comparison)

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article (except for a salting, which is only performed in dire cases). While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

WP:OTHERSTUFF

Also the deleters have already agreed that the subect meets notability by WP:NFOOTBALL the Admin: GiantSnowman has already gone on record agreeing to this. Some of the deleters have heavily criticized the validity of my editor reviewed references from 3rd party and well know newspapers but at the same time pulling up non-editor reviewed private/commercial web sites (that they may or may not own or run themselves) and telling everyone that we should trust these sources and if something "they want" isn't found in "their non-editor reviewed" blog that therefore they have found some smoking gun. So what you have here is a lot of circular logic and hypocrisy and simply admins deleting evidence when it doesn't suit their personal opinion. It doesn't sound terribly honest or fair. And to be the bigger man, and to avoid having to repeat the same obvious points day in and day out to people who say YOU can't do this, YOU can't use this kind of source, but I CAN, I've offered to delete my own article if the detractors will outline some specific reasons why WP:GNG is not satisfied (they already agreed that WP:NFOOTBALL is satisfied <--- I want to emphasize this). YOU can't talk about other stuff, but I CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. Really bizarre thinking and seems dishonest to me. Again I just realized last night after logging off that their WP:RS is far less worthy and reliable and is not editor reviewed newspaper so it FAILS the WP:GNG rules clearly, but the deleters are using it as one of their main reasons for lack of football notability... are you following the problem here? It's circular logic combined with hypocrisy which means they are proving themsevles wrong by their own irrational reasoning. I'm going to paste this at the bottom so that it doesn't get lost up here in the mess of things and also to your talk page, just to be sure you get it C.Fred. Since you seem to be the only objective one here. Again I think its more than fair to take me up on my offer to have me delete my own page if the deleting side can list the specific things why my article's subject is not WP:GNG. Waiting on this.... Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break One

Comment. I don't have anything to say on the merits here, because I'm not going to spend half a bloody hour wading through 80k of text before I have my coffee. But I will say this - I've seen a lot of AFDs where editors placed their faith in having equal numbers of Keep and Delete recommendations, only to find that it is not the number of !votes that count but the strength of their argument. I've also seen debates where editors pointed to other articles and drew similarities - but that's absolutely not relevant in any way, shape, or form. This article has to stand on its own merits, its own references, its own notability. Does it? At first glance, no. But I'll look at the refs and make my own judgement later today or tomorrow. For now - guys, calm down. If you need 1800 words to make your point, you're doing it wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, not sufficient RS. And I actually just spent 20 minutes wading through the Afd and the sources provided, but still fail to see GNG fulfilled. Just a note to Fussballspieler11: your very vocal defense of the article, and your tendency to comment on almost every vote here does the article a disservice; this added to your sulky mood, and your declared feeling of being attacked by a experienced editors just makes this worse. Please assume good faith and even the assumption of good faith. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: Yeah, that baffles me, too. What's the big deal that you have to write more than 18k of text? That usually happens when you are trying to defend the undefendable! Imagine someone saying on this thread that an athlete who has been signed by more than one fully professional league and played for each for more than a year always remained a reserve player? Many of the comments are just based on speculation like the article might fail GNG, might not have sufficIent RS, might not have third party coverage, subject might not have played in a competitive match, and the like. I don't understand the host of controversies here. The facts are: 1- Older has played for more than one fully professional league and played in a competitive match (Cite #3,4,5,6 verify that), 2- He has been mentioned by a number of third party sources and they are not just passing references (Cite #1,3,4,5 verify that). Hence, the article meets both the criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong! Usmanwardag (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Therein lies the problem. We have lots of newspaper articles saying he's played in Brasil top division, but a database of Brasilian football doesn't have his name listed and we can't find any records of him playing in an actual game. We have proof that he was in the lineup for 4 USL-2 games (playing in at least two of them). He claims to have played in European leagues, but the only transfer list (which would have his signing) only shows a transfer between two US indoor teams, neither of which were playing that season. It seems like, at best, he was a trialist for various teams, but never actually signed. At best, the article could be a keep with an extremely lean rewrite (only showing he played in USL-2), but I doubt that alone would meet WP:GNG.LionMans Account (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's in-depth assessment of the sources. For what it's worth, the bizarre behaviour of the 'keep' side of this AFD, including huge walls of text, multiple bolded "KEEP" votes, and even a spurious complaint at ANI, are rarely a sign of a good-faith attempt at an article and certainly haven't helped its case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the nominator's assessment of the sources "in-depth." His evaluation of at least one of them was so cursory that he didn't even notice what language it was in - he said German, but I speak German and that article is all Greek to me. Actually Norwegian, but you get my point.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please concentrate on the discussion, and not on the behavior of the 'keep' side of the AFD. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmanwardag (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go. I looked at the sources, one by one, and will discuss them below. I see the concerns from the nominator, and the initial responses, but I've skipped most of the discussion in favor of taking a fresh look. So some of these points have likely been mentioned above, and if so - oh well.

Ref 1 - There's no author mentioned, and the article has the feel of a press release. The site does not appear to have the sort of editorial control or responsibility that is typical of reliable sources. I'm not impressed.

Ref 2 - Ref 2 is a Wikipedia article, and thus is not suitable as a reference. At all.

Ref 3 - This ref is a local news article discussing a 19-year-old prospect signed with a club in Germany. Older is mentioned and quoted, but the focus of the article is on the prospect.

Ref 4 - This ref is a match report for a game in which Older did not play - and, indeed, seems to predate his time with the club. A club official mentions that Older was signed, but this source isn't about Older at all. It does not confirm that he played in a professional game with anyone - and predates his time with this club, so doesn't confirm that he played any minutes with them, either. We also have another ref from the same source (here) that shows Older not making the team.

Ref 5 - This ref purports to be a team's official blog. I ignore, for the moment, the fact that we do not use blogs as sources generally. The ref is used to confirm that he had been invited to play for two other teams - São Paulo FC and Fluminense - but this comes from a quote from Older himself saying that he had been invited to play for those teams. At best, this ref confirms that Older asked a team in São Paulo for a workout, and was declined.

Ref 6 - Ref 6 shows that Older received at least two write-in votes in a fan poll. The poll asked fans to set the roster for the US Team for the 1998 World Cup. The article states that Older "...was voted to the fans selection of the 1998 USA World Cup Roster in an Internet poll..." and that's not precisely true. This doesn't serve a claim of notability, because all it confirms is that at least two people put his name in the voting (since people who got only one vote were excluded from the list). That's it.

Ref 7 - OK, here he's listed playing 12 minutes in relief for the San Diego Gauchos. A roster from that year shows that Older played 117 minutes over the course of 4 matches, taking one shot and committing one foul. See here. Does this team (and that league) meet the standards we require for top-tier professional clubs?

Ref 8 - This confirms Older's involvement in the film festival. Good as far as it goes, but does nothing for notability in and of itself. The notability here would come from the festival itself. So - is the Ventura Film Festival notable? Would its founder also be notable as a result, just for that involvement?

Ref 9 - This ref does not mention Older at all, in any capacity. It mentions the film festival, briefly - but that speaks to the festival, not to its founder. At best, it would be placed at Ventura Film Festival.

Ref 10 - Again, this is a news source that confirms that Older founded the festival. It does not discuss Older in any depth.

Guys, I'm sorry, but I don't see the case for notability from these references. As far as football is concerned, the only thing we can confirm is that he played 4 games for the Gauchos. I can find no similar records for the other teams listed - match reports, rosters, etc - to confirm time in top tier Brazilian leagues. I'll see if something else came up in the discussion above, but I'm inclined to recommend Delete here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse more. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UltraExactZZ, thanks for joining the discussion:

YOU SAID: Ref 1 - There's no author mentioned, and the article has the feel of a press release. The site does not appear to have the sort of editorial control or responsibility that is typical of reliable sources. I'm not impressed.

Ref #1 source (Futebol Interior) is used over 500 times already in Wikipedia, Alexa ranks it as authoritative top 900 sites in all of Brazil and top 19,000 in the world, I have been reading it for around 10 years, it's used by others to do research as well. Your statements simply don't match the WP:GNG requirements, but trying to quote invalid sources as your primary reason/argument. And the WP:NFOOTBALL notability has already been agreed to by football expert and Wikipedia admin GiantSnowman.

Please stick to using only editor reviewed publications like my main news sources in ref 1 and 3. They prove notability without a shadow of doubt, along with #7 and the others tell the true story. Simply looking someone up in a non valid, non-editorial reviewed private/commercial or hobby web site means nothing and fails the same rules you are trying to prove that my sources fail. You are contradicting yourself here. And people are still misrepresenting the facts still denying the number of fully professional games in the United states USL Pro league my subject played when its proven time and time again that he played 4 in the USL Pro league in 2003. He likely did this just for fun because he was around 35 at the time, but its been proven time and time again in this discussion and people are still trying to minimize my subject's reputation by ignoring this. Proof:

Wikipedia admin: GiantSnowman already agreed he meets WP:NFOOTBALL but says he lacks WP:GNG but fails to be specific and uses his own logic to weaken his argument to delete by quoting non-editorial reviewed publications and personal blog sites as his (and the other deleters) main proof. Thanks again guys. I'm new here and learing the rules of WP:GNG very well by now and they state you can't use non-editoria reviewed publications to establish notability like the deleters are attempting. Please stick to the Wikipedia rules. Even admins and editors have to follow the rules.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned reference 1 - the Futebol Interior source. Who wrote the article? Who generally writes their articles? Who is on their editorial staff? I'm not familiar with the site and don't find their alexa ranking to be particularly relevant. All I see is that it seems to be a news article but includes unrelated biographical information at the end, in much the same way that the typical press release does. That is what drew the comparison. And ref 3 is an article about someone else. It does mention the subject - and even quotes him - but it's not about him, it's about this other kid who signed with a team in Germany. It confirms that Mr. Older exists, which is nice, and that he is involved in the sports management industry, but it doesn't confer notability. It is not significant coverage, because it doesn't cover Mr. Older. As for the games played in 2003 - I acknowledged that he played four games in 2003. Is that sufficient? I dunno, but I also left the question open. I'd sure love to see similar sources documenting games played for clubs in Brazil. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I have a lot of respect for GiantSnowman, he's not the boss of me. It is possible that we disagree on this point, and on the fate of this article (though I see him recommending Delete, above). Nor does it matter that he is an admin - that doesn't make his opinion more worthy. I've known loads of admins, most of them are idiots. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz:, I'm not sure whether to be offended or not :P Giant Snowman 19:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

As one admin to another, my snark may have gotten the best of me. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

------> @ User_talk:Ultraexactzz

You're contradicting yourself by:

1) trying to label an editor reviewed news reference as invalid while using non-editor reviewed sources to claim reason to delete, Spock from Star Treck would easily find the flaw in your logic.

2) trying to say because youve never heard of ref#1 it's, therefore it must be invalid, so what? you don't need to know it, its editor reviewed and already used over 500 times as valid referenes in Wikipedia

3) saying there are no editors on that site just shows you didn't even read it, they are listed all over it, you are hence saying the source is invalid but you didnt even read it

4) saying As for the games played in 2003 - I acknowledged that he played four games in 2003. Is that sufficient? I dunno, but I also left the question open. GiantSnowman already said he's satisfied WP:NFOOTBALL

5) asking for other sources supporting that he played in Brazil, there are other at least 3 other sources listed in the references of this, and at least one of them is a valid editor reviewed newspaper, and there are a ton of pictures of him doing his thing and other news articles from the time before the Internet on his Facebook page (I did my research).

6) basically your whole reasoning is flawed and illogical and full of contradictions, but I respect your right to delete. I even said I would delete if you anyone give specific reason why WP:GNG isnt met. I'm still waiting a day later. People just keep saying I dont know what Futebol Interior is so I don't accept that source so its reall just your opinion and not based on the WP:GNG rules themselves. Thanks for your time. You do appear to be at least pretending to be unbiased by calling admins idiots.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add a little note here. Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). I hope I made the things clear here. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone

I'm not trying to be rude here. But maybe if you read what's been said again by GiantSnowman, you'll see some of the errors in your reasoning and your attempted use of invalid sources according to Wikipedia and circular logic (banning me from using editor reviewed news source while using other non-editor reviewed private blogs yourself, banning me from talking about other stuff while talking about other stuff frequently yourselves)

GiantSnowman's WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments

Ha, you clearly are not a member of WP:FOOTBALL then, as I am - if you were, you would see a high turnover of non-notable articles getting deleted (not that that has any impact whatsoever on this discussion). What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! GiantSnowman 12:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, WP:NFOOTBALL is actually subservient to WP:GNG; passing the former gives you assumed notability that you pass the latter, as opposed to actual notability. There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL but clearly failing GNG does not make you notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination). GiantSnowman 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GitantSnowman's use of non-editorial reviewed private blog/web sites for main his main arguments to refute my subjects notability while at the same time many try to say that I can't official league match rosters and statistics and editor reviewed AND WELL RESPECTED news publications tha already appear over 500 times as valid references on Wikipedia

'Comment' Claims like mr X played in the Brazilian Serie A can easily be verified/falsified using a database like this one [2]. As you can see it goes back a very long time before there was such a thing as internet. Cattivi (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No results. GiantSnowman 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman deleting two of my comments that I feel are valid to supporting, if not proving, WP:GNG

@Fussballspieler11:, yes, I removed this wall of text (including copyrighted information!) as it was disruptive. Most of your posts here have been similar (though not quite as extreme) and if you don't start contributing calmly, concisely, and without displaying OWNership issues then I will ask an uninvolved admin to intervene here. GiantSnowman 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: ----------> There already is another uninvolved admin here, you're the 2nd admin here GiantSnowman, btw

GiantSnowman admits subjects passes WP:NFOOTBALL

"There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL" - User: GiantSnowman

GiantSnowman saying that its strange for editors to be supporting KEEP of my article but the deleters are normal? Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased?

What is stranger to me is editors coming out of nowhere to try and keep the article! - GiantSnowman

Is that valid logic? Is that fair? Is that unbiased?

I think GiantSnowman and the editor who came back after 6 years and 10 new references is strange. And how the article was labeled a hoax within minutes of it being created by me means someone was watching it 24/7 no other way to so quickly define a hoax (hoax was denied by C.Fred) Strange is how multiple deleters use the same language to minimize the repuation of my subject by calling him "amateur" and only played a "few minutes" when all the teams listed on his resume are fully professional. Strange is how GiantSnowman argues not passing WP:GNG but then censors and deletes my comments hinting at proof that he is very famous. Strange is the anonymous KEEP vote that came in on this talk page and then GiantSnowman later makes claims of "stranger ... is editors coming out of nowhere" - GiantSnowman

Strange is how someone who is not notable can have such attention to his Wikipedia page that over 20 editors and 2 admins have spent 3 days now and thousands of lines of text trying to prove its notability. (self contradicting reality again.)

Once again, I've already called foul play because of:

1) its strange that my article was immediate vandalized with a fake hoax delettion attempt minutes after I wrote it, meaning that someone was following it with a search script or hitting refresh every 60 seconds or so 24/7 7 days a week, its not possible to decide if its a hoax with 10 new references and a totally new article (and to find the article) that quickly 2) its strange that the article was deleted 6 years ago at the same time as a business conflict the subject had about a hostile take over of his film festival 3) its strange that the fact that the same deleter from 6 years ago badly muffed his critique of the new article just giving a blanket critisicm and clearly not really reading the new references 4) its strange that the fact that some deleters claimed that they read the old article and its references when the old article is not available on Wikipedia anymore 5) its strange that i was trying to write the article without a username and the same user kept denying it and then deleted his own talk page to hide my communications with him and then my subjects original article was zapped clean from wikipedia forever, so i created a username for the first time resulting in the article being approved and a KEEP vote from the original approver 6) its strange that editors went as far to have to have their comments striked out by C.Fred, they risked their reputations by bordering on poking fun and minimizing my subjects career 7) its strange several deleters use the same words "a few minutes" and "amateur", I'm not saying it was the same user with two accounts or more but it seems like there is a team working here and I have read about the existance of Wiki-gangs (look it up yourself if you dont know what that is) now dont put words in my mouth, i'm not saying this is true, just saying its strange to me 8) its strange to me that GiantSnowman is now calling for a "2nd admin" (perhaps his friend) when he is the "2nd admin" we already had C.Fred (not acusing anyone of doing this, but its strange)

Anyway these things seem suspicious to me and I will gladly delete my own article if you can show me how the scores of editor reviewed news publications (already used over 500 times on Wikipedia), starring in national and International TV commericals for Intel Pentium, Snickers, Pioneer/Phillips, Reebok, fan votes to the World Cup roster, owning his own international film festival, giving awards to Academy Award winners, personal friends with Pele and David Beckham, able to place local American kids on major German professional soccer teams as an agent, having played in 3 continents and around 7 different countries, and a huge delete discussion on Wikipedia is not notable. As a fan of early American soccer players it really just baffles my mind the opposition here.

Thanks again and I respect your right to delete my article and expect you to give me the same rights you have. Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ everyone

Note: I just re-read WP:GNG it doesnt say that WP:NFOOTBALL is subservient to WP:GNG like GiantSnowman claimed. This is clearly his own opinion and not a fact.

WP:GNG clearly states and I quote:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. "

The "also presumed notable" means that someone can be notable by a different set of rules, it doesn't say you have to follow the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It says someone can be notable just by the Notability

Subject-specific guidelines which everyone agrees passes by means of WP:NFOOTBALL.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fussballspieler11, I respectfully ask you to actually read WP:NFOOTBALL (y'know, the guideline you have been banging on about for the past 2 days?), because it quite clearly says "Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable [...] players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". I have already provided links to maybe a dozen AFDs that show community consensus which states GNG is more important than NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. It clearly says you are wrong here. Please read the words "players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or"

1st the "or" means that its one OR the other, not both are need - either WP:GNG "or" WP:NFOOTBALL are you trying to mislead me or you just can't graps the concept and meaning of the word "or"? I'm seriously concerned at your lack of ability to understand 8th grade level logic.

2nd you're, again, using the WP:SOMEOTHERSTUFF argument here, it's not valid... just because you made a mistake on dozens of other Afd doesn't mean I'm going to sit around while you 1) delete multiple comments I've made 2) ignore truths about the meaning of Wikipedia rules!

Let me say it again... ————→ OR ←——— means one or the other, its exclusive, hence:

1) soccer players who haven't appeared in a full professional leauge can be considered notable if(or) they have enough press coverage

2) soccer players who have no features written about them they can be considered notable if they have played in a full professional league

3) none of this should matter because my subject satisfies both NGN and NFOOTBALL since he's a really relatively famous guy in several countries and has multiple features JUST ABOUT HIM playing professional soccer, some are too old to appear in Internet searches and in your hobby blogs that you claim are proof worthy.

This is amazing how a Wikipedia amin can't understand the meaning of the word "or". Mind boggling and please do not let your lack of reading comprehension affect me adversely and the reputation of my subject. You're CLEARLY wrong here and I have already made one complaint and this is worth of another. Although I respect your right to disagree, I can't see how you are right here. I am not angry but I feel strongly that you are doing me and my subject a dis-service as well as misleading other editors and wheover else might read this.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ GiantSnowman

Here's another example. The WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL says you can satisfy the list OR you can have played in a full professional league. This is like telling a child at dinner that you must eat your vetatables or your fruits before you can have your desert. So the child, in order to get desert, must eat one OR the other (or both.) So the child can do one of 3 things to get desert:

1) eat the fruits (NFOOTBALL)
2) eat the vegetables (GNG)
3) eat both fruits and vegetables (GNG and NFOOTBALL)

I hope this makes it crystal clear.

Fussballspieler11 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's amazing is that someone who has been here for only 3 days truly believes they know more than a number of experienced, truested editors (myself included!). I'm not sure if you're stubborn or deluded but you need to start listening, something you have not done once in your brief time here. You've been told to stop with snide comments about other editors - you continue. You've been told you don't OWN the article - you continue to claim it as your own. You've been told not to post walls of texts - you continue. Your edits are becoming increasingly annoying and many editors are fast losing patience with you. Stop patronising me and others, because I am so very close to losing it with you, which won't be good for either of us. Giant Snowman 21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what can I do now about a certain someone without getting banned? I feel a certain someone misrepresented the Wikipedia rules more than once on purpose in order to mislead me and other voting editors. I call foul play. Had I not read them myself I wouldn't have realized this because I assumed a certain someone was correct in a certain someone's interpretation of them. I can read. So now what? I don't want to break and rules but a certain someone threatened to ban me if I talk bout a certain someone? I would like to file another complaint about a certain someone but I fear a certain someone will ban me. I fear writing this asking for a certain someone to let me know what I am allowed to do will get me banned at this point. I guess if a certain someone did that it would just be a certain someone's way of winning and deleteing my article and would prove my point about a certain someone even more.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL by having played a few minutes in USL2, which is listed at WP:FPL. That is a presumption of notability. However, that does not mean he is guaranteed an article. I haven't yet seen evidence of enough reliable non-trivial independent coverage to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Struway2 I realize that everything is a consensus on Wikipedia, but do you realize that it's not required to have both NFOOTBALL and GNG? And please refrain from using diminuative exaggerations in describing my subject to minimize his reputation. He played more than a few minutes and you are just mimicing the others. Show some respect please.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Fussballspieler11 has a clear COI/agenda here as he has described the subject of the article as "my customer" before quickly changing it to "my subject - a very telling slip-up. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that, I'm at work emailing customers so I made a typo. Have you ever typed a word so many times that you type it on accident when you don't mean it? I have not been paid to write this article pr hired in any way by my subject. I am simply a fan. I'm not allowed to mention the person above because he threatened to ban me if I did it so I'm not sure what I can do. He lied, I caught him, he threatened to ban me. Nice system we have here. I made a typo I'll admit that but the subject is not my customer. And even if he was, there is nothing wrong with hiring a Wikipedia author to write your article. It's done everyday. But I repeat, I have not been hired by my subject.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I lied? Either provide evidence or strike your unfounded accusation (yet another infraction we can add to a slowly ever-growing list). Giant Snowman 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And from day one I was upfront with C.Fred (admin) about being a fan who was in touch with the subject on his Facebook page to get the photo for the article. You guys should check out his Facebook to see other proofs of the claims in the article that might not be valid references because they are newspapers from Switzerland outlining the Swiss Cup that Jordan Older played in in 1993 (which also qualifies as notable under sports because its a nation wide cup competition.)Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding as to what "presumed" means. I looked it up:

presumed past participle, past tense of pre·sume (Verb)
Verb
Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability: "I presumed that the man had been escorted from the building".
Take for granted that something exists or is the case.

The user above said that NFOOTBALL notability was satisfied but it was only presumed. This means that it's taken for granted, not that its some kind of reason to doubt.

So the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL clearly state that notability is presumed.... Meaning:

If the subject played in a full professional league he is presumed(taken for granted) that the subject is notable even in the absence of GNG.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)— Fussballspieler11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dude. The best thing you can do right now, for this article, for yourself, for your future as an editor of Wikipedia, is to not say another word. Everything you want to say you have said. A hundred times. We have heard you. Saying it louder or more often is not going to benefit this article. You have been accusatory, defensive, and suspicious since the moment you arrived in this discussion. Honestly, I can't even hear you anymore. All I hear is a painful repetitive noise. This is not a playground, and we are not children. I am just so tired of even knowing that you wrote anything new here. You are done. Trust me. Whether the article is kept or deleted, you are so very, very done contributing to this discussion. I say that as advice: I have no power to enforce a cease and desist order. If I did, well... No matter. Please: you are done. I invite you to leave this conversation not because you do not have a stake in its outcome, but because you have been deeply uncivil, and your continued contributions are only reiterations of things you have already said, with a pointed finger and a cracking voice and my ears hurt so much I think they are bleeding now. Please, oh zen master. Please stop the insanity. We've heard you. You don't hear back much. KDS4444^Talk 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 I have nothing against you but you can't even get your facts straight and you were the one who started this Afd in the first place. People are lying here and so obviously that it's funny. A certain admin tryed to trick me and everyone else about an hour ago into believing that GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL when it clearly doesn't. If you believe that then you are flat out wrong too. I don't care if you don't like it or whatever. This is not about you. This is about the facts and the rules of Wikipedia. Of course you want me to leave because I just found someone out. I have not been uncivil. I respect everyone's right to disagree. I even apologized to a certain someone and then he lied to me flat out. I will not stand by why abuse of power goes on, its wrong and you seem to support it or at least ignore it. And who cares if you can't read my comments, your comments from the start, where you misread things, called Swedish German, so on and so on have been slammed into the trash can long ago by a few editors, so don't think that everyone wants to hear you either. I respect your right to disagree, but please show me the same respect that you want and also show some repsect for my subject by not using diminuative words to describe him and his career.Fussballspieler11 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back at ANI. Giant Snowman 22:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break Two: The Return

Fussballspieler11 has been blocked by Admin Bwilkins for the duration of this AFD. I, for one, am going to have a cup of tea and take a deep breath now. I'm still not convinced that Reference 1 is sufficient to show notability, especially if it is the only such reference (the others being unsuitable, as I noted). But if that site is a reliable source, we can leave it. If there were other questions or concerns that I'm missing in the above discussion, please bring'em up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost hear myself think again. It's rather nice. And tea helps, too. And breathing. Ahhhhh. Now then: despite the accusations of dishonesty and deception of which I have been accused (oh, what will the tabloids say tomorrow??), I really have just completed a second as-super-thorough-as-I-know-how search on futebolinterior.com.br looking for information about the web site to get SOME sense of its status as a reliable source, and while I do not speak Portuguese (or German, or Swedish, or Norwegian, or even Finish!) I can say with some confidence that what I keep finding again and again is't helpful. It shows up a billion times on a google search of the term, but half a billion of these results are, as I have said, statements of its monetary value and number of visitors. I just can't find anything about editorial oversight (supervisão editorial) or an editorial board (conselho editorial... Hmmmm.... Maybe I do speak português!) and I do not think that anyone in any amount of time is going to identify the human author of citation #1. If they do, I will eat my hat. And I have a really nice hat that I so don't want to eat right now! KDS4444^Talk 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futebol Interior does have the editorial staff of its own. We're just having some problems understanding that because it's not an English website. Anyway, please check out this link of the blog of Futebol Interior http://blogdoari.futebolinterior.com.br/, you can find here that they have got experienced authors to write for them. And regarding the Older's article, it is not a press release but is rather written by Indoor Football agency (you can find the credits at the end of the article). It's very much like professional sports websites who don't give credits of news to a particular author. But, if you check their blog, they have authors and very experienced ones. I hope I made the things clear here! Usmanwardag (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sites I'm familiar with - few though they may be - credit their writers, and that's generally a fact that bolsters a site's reliability. Perhaps, as you say, it is a cultural thing. But I can't show who wrote the source at issue here, and that caused me to question its provenance. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper Does that article have any author? No. Why? Because it's simply news. In blogs, they (Futebol Interior) do give credits to their authors and they have editorial staff of their own. Usmanwardag (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On several points. First, the sources in the article are deeply flawed, per the nominator and others. Second, the statement at WP:NFOOTBALL says anyone who appeared in a fully professional league is generally considered notable. In short, it's not guaranteed. And given how big soccer is in Brazil and South America, if this person really did play in Brazil's top division, finding sources shouldn't be this tough. Bluntly, this person fails WP:GNG, and that for me puts him on the wrong side of "generally". Third, someone noted above that this player does not appear on any transfer list. Almost immediately, a new user comes up with a site that is user generated that shows one transfer - between small time local teams in San Diego, but nothing that indicates the article subject played any of the top teams claimed. Seriously, the article claims this guy played in some pretty big leagues, but SPAs in this AFD are trying to pin notability on low-level PDL appearances? Obvious red ~~flag~~ card. Fourth, it is claimed this person took part in training camp for the American World Cup team in 1994. Again, if true, reliable sources should have been easily obtained. Fifth, it is fishy that stories that do mention Older tend to be user-submitted. Example: [21]. Sixth, we have a professional soccer player who is also a physician who also runs a Film Festival of indeterminate importance who is also an actor (who was "featured" in some pretty big movies, yet has no IMDB profile [yet]). I'm left wondering if we will see stories tomorrow about how he is also a former astronaut who became a member of Seal Team Six. All in all, this just looks to me like a whole lot of fiction and puffery. And based on the first reply on this thread, may have been ongoing for some time. Reso lute 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a long standing consensus that individuals who might pass WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively fail WP:GNG will often be considered to not meet inclusion criteria and there are a string of recent examples of AFDs that have overwhelmingly concluded as much. Beyond that, I don't think I've ever seen a dead horse so comprehensively flogged. Stalwart111 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Paid-editing-prompted drama.

But he has a super cute "Gotcha!" profile picture on facebook! Surely that counts! (I will shuddup now... probably). KDS4444^Talk 01:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, that made me laugh. Stalwart111 02:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan of Jordan Older (& American football), I take serious offence on your jokes about him. Usmanwardag (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter - he removed said photo of himself so nobody will be able to share our humour anyway. Stalwart111 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if you are operating a fake facebook account, or UserKDS4444, or someone else (it's not an accusation!) but you have got to be respectful, because 1- This is supposed to be a civilized discussion and so anybody should not make fun of and/or ridicule anybody else, and 2- I believe he deserves respect being a football player. Making these jokes or ridiculing him won't help your cause. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? A facebook page exists for an obscure, non-notable football player filled with childhood photos and photos of his family members and having existed for years it is altered within seconds of being mentioned here and your suggestion is that one of us has spent years and years cultivating a fake facebook page for a guy we've never heard of just so we can do something strange with it during a deletion discussion for an article that should never have been created? One that was militantly defended by a guy with an obvious conflict of interest who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy right up until the point he got blocked? That has to be about the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Go and take a big deep breath and find something else to edit for a while. We're ridiculing this ridiculous campaign because it is ridiculous. And you just took things to new heights of ridiculousness. Stalwart111 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, and I found the missing newspaper articles from newspapers printed "before the time of the Internet" and therefore not available to the public! They can be found on his Facebook page right here. Let me see... Looks like four of them are from the Ventura County Star-Free Press, which is a ... very... local newspaper. One of them is from the L.A. Times! It doesn't mention Older by name, I know, but he is apparently in the picture that goes with the article. I am pretty sure that's him. On the far right. Okay, moving on, so, two of the remaining "articles" are scanned copies of his 1990 high school soccer all-star games flyer-thingy. He is mentioned in one of these two articles as playing for a team there, so those are good. And the last one— wait for it— is the SWISS article! Published in Switzerland and written in SWISS! (I know, because I speak Swiss! But not German or Norweigan or Sweedish). According to the caption it says something about the Swiss Cup. I can't read any of the text because it is too blurry, but I am pretty sure that the words "Jordan Older" are in there in that paragraph somewhere, on the right side. Possibly. I guess my Swiss is a little rusty. Well, if that doesn't prove notability then I don't know what does. Any takers?? (oh, that poor dead horse... I like horses!). KDS4444^Talk 02:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it, don't you hate it when you mention something, and you make a link to it, and then minutes later the link is no longer available? Well, that's what happened. No longer available. It was available when I made the link. I swear. Hm. I guess someone with access to Jordan Older's Facebook page made them unavailable. I guess someone with access to his page who is also feverishly checking up on this AfD discussion made them unavailable. I had just found several more good articles from the Ventura County Star I was [not] going to mention, too. But they were never published on the Internet, and now you can't see them anywhere at all, I guess. Shoot. I tried. Stupid horses. KDS4444^Talk 03:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sound a little crazy, don't you? Are you sure all the pictures you posted are not copyrighted?? I have a little knowledge of languages too and you know what, SWISS is GERMAN. If you can read SWISS, you can read GERMAN too. I found some serious errors in your very first nomination as well where you mistook German for Norwegian! Not sure what to say, but it seems like you're just making up comments. Usmanwardag (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? Where's the copyright? The guy posted photos to his own Facebook page, KDS linked to that Facebook page (they were there; I saw them too) and within minutes they were taken down by someone. Copyright is irrelevant. Far more likely is that what was there constituted his "scrapbook" with all of his media mentions, none of which allow him to pass WP:GNG here. Realising that such compendium would hurt the already-weak arguments of the keep crowd here, they were removed. AFD regulars have seen things like this a million times before. Old tactics are old. Stalwart111 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's a very subjective view, I must say. I am seriously unable to figure out how a guy who cannot even distinguish between languages, nominated the page for discussion. Please have a look at delete side of the discussion more objectively and you'll find tons of baseless rumours. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: This is Facebook for you. If I come up with thousand images proving notability of the subject, they won't be reliable, because anyone can make and post these. They can even be photoshopped. So, why did you, in the first instance, just give the link of that pic? That's beyond me! Usmanwardag (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I didn't link to Facebook, KDS did, and he did so to highlight the fact that the subject has collected press coverage about himself and none of what he had collected allowed him to meet WP:GNG. He also highlighted the fact that the subject was watching this discussion so intently that when his images were mentioned, they were immidiately removed. KDS's ability with multiple languages has exactly zero to do with his nomination of pages for deletion. You're clutching at straws now, mate. High time you dropped the stick (or at least the torch you're carrying for this subject) lest you join your mate in the dressing rooms. Stalwart111 07:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I wouldn't write walls of text on this but would say this is illogical. Absolutely illogical to base your conclusions on a facebook picture which has no real identity, and which might be fake. Whoever started this is just trying to digress from the main issue and trying to reach immature conclusions. So, please let's stop it and let's talk about what actually matters.

And regarding translation issue, this has got to do with his nomination. Apparently he was interpreting all the text, but didn't have any idea about the languages. On a slightly different note, I wonder why are you so much interested in clearing the things for KDS. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did you read my original comment at all? I said nothing about Facebook and I certainly didn't "base my conclusions" on a joke that was made after my conclusions. And the only thing I'm "clearing" is your misunderstanding of the conversation thus far. You're just talking yourself in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. You remain the only unblocked keep voter here and this is a waste of time. I'm done. Stalwart111 11:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 and Stalwart111 it's against Wikipedia guidelines of privacy and safety (to prevent identity theft and stalking) to talk about subject matter that is not related, such as childhood photos on Facebook. This is clearly not related and you are just gossiping (also prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines) so I would like to call light to these transgressions, just for the record. This has been a highly irregular bashing of this poor man. Usmanwardag (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm . Seriously. Stalwart111 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: KDS4444 linked to a copyrighted and non-soccer picture, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state this is against the policy of Wikipedia, and then you Stalwart111 said "A facebook page exists for an obscure, non-notable football player filled with childhood photos and photos of his family members" this is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines and is also irrelevant to the discussion and not related to his soccer career, there were soccer photos marked as free copyright but KDS4444 linked to the one of them. Clearly bashing and poking fun and invading his privacy. Usmanwardag (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm . How is linking to copyright content "against the policy of Wikipedia". Almost every reference in Wikipedia is a "link to copyright content". You really have lost the plot haven't you? Stalwart111 10:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Summary to Closing Admin

1- Subject meets WP:FOOTBALL based on the fact that he was signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues. He remained with those fully professional clubs for more than a year each. If we just discuss on the basis of probability (as many people on this page are doing), it is highly probable that he would have got a chance to play in a competitive match. That said, there are a number of references that clearly provide that Older played in fully pro Brazilian clubs. I can't recall any player who was described as having played professionally by third party independent sources but nevertheless did not play a single competitive match. Finally, the fact that he was a little less famous than his colleagues and that Internet was just starting then, might have resulted in him not being listed. Please note popularity and notability are two different things and should not be mixed.

2- Subject meets WP:GNG because he has been described as a fully pro player by 3-4 independent and reliable third party news sources and those are not just passing references. I have already explained in detail that Cite #1 is valid because Futebol interior has an editorial staff of its own (Please read the discussion above).

Based on these, I strongly believe that Jordan Older deserve a mention in history, and should be given one. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoing! My joke about the whole speaking Swiss-thing just blew past you, didn't it. You know that SOME Swiss is actually what they call Rätoromanisch, of course... in German. That is what I must have meant by "Swiss" (... no, wait, that isn't what I meant at all by "Swiss"... Because the thing is that German... Swiss... Swedish is a Germanic... Rätoro... You still don't... Never mind, Dude. It's okay. Sie verstehen mich nicht mehr, als ich Sie verstehen, und das ist, ein Teil des Problems zwischen uns zu sein scheint. Ist jetzt alles klar??). When you can produce an actual name to go along with cite #1 ("Interior Football Agency" is not a name) Ich werde meinen Hut wieder essen. I see that they also borrowed a picture of Older from his Facebook page for the article in Futebolinterior. Good thing Older had released the copyright on his Facebook page for that picture in advance. Glück, I'd say. Sind wir fertig? KDS4444^Talk 07:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Usmanwardag: a qucik note, your comment "Subject meets WP:FOOTBALL based on the fact that he was signed by 3-4 fully professional leagues" is factually incorrect, you have to actually play in the leagues to be considered notable - it clearly says "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." Giant Snowman 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: a quick reply: it is highly unrealistic to assume that 1) the player who has signed for 3-4 fully professional clubs and stayed there for more than a year, and 2) who has been mentioned by absolutely independent third party sources to have played for those fully professional clubs, did not ever get to play a single minute in a competitive match. Let not the the fact that he was not that famous mix with the fact that he was notable. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if he played for them in a competitive first-team game then why are there are no reliable sources confirming it? There are plenty of comprehensive online football databases, especially for a nation like Brazil where football is so important. There are numerous cases where a player has been signed to a professional club for a long time but hardly (or never) played. Steve Harper took 5 years to make his debut for Newcastle United, and only played an average of 10 games a season for them over a 20 year career. Giant Snowman 10:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Usmanwardag, my suggestion would be to show sources that document games played in other leagues. A player who can be shown to have played in multiple fully professional leagues has a much better case for notability than one who can only be confirmed to have played in one such league (as is the case here). And, an aside, please stop questioning the motivations of other editors. I can't speak for them, but my recommendation is based almost solely on the dearth of proper sourcing for this subject. The facebook shenanigans and the drama on this page, I discount. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You might want to see this http://uslpro.uslsoccer.com/stats/23496.html, he played in a match of a fully professional league, still any doubts?? Usmanwardag (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant when he fails WP:GNG so comprehensively - as everyone apart from you concluded long ago! Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to reiterate but please read my above comment. There are at least 4 citations that are absolutely about the subject and 7 others with passing mentions about the subject (See the citations of the original article and my first reply to User KDS4444). If that's not notability, then what is? Please explain.

I want to reply to one of the earlier comments of User KDS4444 in which he said that Futebol Interior doesn't have any author. It has and that's Futebol Interior Agency. Now, someone will come and correct me that it can't be called an author. So, here's a link for your reference http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper That article doesn't have any author? Why? Because it's simply news. In blogs, they (Futebol Interior) do give credits to their authors and they have editorial staff of their own. I think you have got my point. And one final note to Giant Snowman: you said that everyone apart from me concluded long ago that this article fails WP:GNG. So, just to remind, here are the editors who voted keep.

-@Buffbills7701: -@Eragon.raju: -@FergusM1970: -@Fussballspieler11: -@Sourov0000:

Thanks! Usmanwardag (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:NOTAVOTE. 2) Fussballspieler11 has been blocked so saying he's on your side isn't the best tactic. 3) Seriously, just flipping listen for once! Giant Snowman 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- Absolutely agreed. Was just showing you that everything has not been concluded as you said. 2- Yeah, that's a good point about the blocked user, probably he was spoiling the discussion by posting walls and walls of text, but anyway. 3- I'm listening mate, but there are 10 citations. 10! Not a small quantity. 4 are absolutely about the subject. To be notable, how many do you require? Please explain. Perhaps you can better guide me about it. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how many sources there are - a non-notable person could have 100 references, a notable person could have 3. It's to do with the quality of the source, and how significant their coverage of the subject is. Giant Snowman 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what sort of source would satisfy you? Personally I think this article is just above the bar for notability; there's clear evidence that he has played in a fully professional league, even if it was only a US one. Obviously you don't think that is a legitimate source, so what would be?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are both showing a basic failure to understand GNG. We are not doubting that he played some minutes in a lowly US league. We are doubting that he has not received significant coverage in reliable third, party sources i.e. something that covers him in great detail, not just passing mentions. Giant Snowman 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one whole article in Futebol Interior about him. As KDS4444 can tell you it's written in Brazilian, but anyone who speaks Portuguese should be able to read it too.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- He did not play in a lowly US league; he played in a fully professional USL soccer league, listed as fully professional by Wikipedia. 2- (i) full article on Futebol Interior (already proved that it's reliable (http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol), (ii), If you look closely, the article mentions Older a lot of times and is certainly credible (so not a passing reference at all!) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html, {iii) http://web.archive.org/web/20020209014728/http://www.tricolornet.com.br/noticias/arquivo1999/990717.htm A whole paragraph about Jordan Older which, somehow, proves that this is not a passing mention. There are some other mentions too, but for the sake of brevity, I will stick with these. Usmanwardag (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:And what do you mean by quality/significant coverage? What qualifies? Usmanwardag (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute. My eyes are glassy reading all this. Enough is enough. Jus da fax 10:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have eyes?? I clawed mine out 12 hours ago and it really hurt but it was totally worth it!!! KDS4444^Talk 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the absence of independent, reliable sources and the failure of WP:GNG. This one is just not notable. WTucker (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stalwart. Note: if this is kept, someone really needs to go through this article and clear up the crufty parts. Check the number of times "first", "only", and "youngest" appear in the article. Any of these claims not clearly supported by the references need to go. The portion that depends on the poll result with "more than one write-in vote" should go as well. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of the youngest and first are well known to soccer fans because there have been no other americans playing in Brazil (even reserves) until this year. So Jordan Older was the first to play there by 19 years (Until Freddy Adu who just signed in Brazil). Plus, he was 20 years at that time, so he was really the youngest. Ask any soccer fan, he would know. Finally, the question here is notability, not the contents of this article. Usmanwardag (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as blatant (self)promo of/by a totally and utterly non-notable person. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SALT this and any similar titles - if it's not a pure hoax, it's pure promo. I'm not seeing anything reliable in a Google search on this guy whatsoever. And the ones in the article have been thoroughly debunked above. Transfermarkt isn't particularly reliable either, and this is a classic example of why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the "hoax" stuff is coming from. We're certainly not talking about David Beckham here, but there's no real doubt that he has played professional football. Given the number of articles WP has about distinctly non-notable footballers I don't quite understand the OTT hostility to this one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other crap exists, so this should be kept? No. Taroaldo ✉ 20:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this guy has apparently played 12 minutes. Wow. That's nowhere near enough, as per general consensus from other lower-league players that made one uber-brief appearance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you described consensus accurately, but it's also very much unclear whether the USL Second Division was "fully-pro" in 2003. Don't take the listing at WP:FPL as gospel for all years in question. Jogurney (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if the league was fully pro in 2003? You'll have an RS for that, of course. I mean it's not WP:OR or anything...--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda switching the evidentiary burden of verifiability. The claim here is that the league was fully professional and on that basis, the subject is notable. A reliable source would be required to verify both of those claims - that it was fully professional and that he played in it. Claiming verification by default (without a source) and then demanding a reliable source to disprove that unsourced claim is the wrong way around, really. Stalwart111 07:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it isn't. See, there's a listed source saying it's a pro league. There isn't one saying it might not have been. So the burden of proof is exactly where it should be - on those claiming it's not a pro league.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is the source from? You should probably list it here. Stalwart111 is still correct about the way "burden of proof" works - the burden is on proving that it did happen, not that it didn't, so to speak. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the USL Pro match database, which lists Older as having played in a pro match. It even says "Pro league" and everything. It certainly seems a bit more substantial than just claiming that the league might not have been pro in 2003. Because there isn't any RS for that, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2013 08:31 (UTC)

The league claiming it is fully professional doesn't necessarily make it so. And I wasn't the one who made that claim; besides, 12 minutes in a professional match isn't enough as per prior consensus in several AfDs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@FergusM1970: No, that link does not list Older as having played in a pro match. All it says is that he was a substitute in a match, which you, as a soccer fan, ought to know. But far from all substitutes are actually used during a match. So as a reference it can only be used to prove that Older was licensed to play for San Diego Gauchos, not that he ever actually played for them. And it does not prove that the league San Diego Gauchos played in was fully professional. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an own goal, my friend - it clearly states he played for 12 minutes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an own goal. I does say that he was on the pitch for 12 minutes (I need coffee...). And judging by the thorough debunking of all of his other claims those 12 minutes on the pitch in a lower league in the US seem to have been the pinnacle of his career as a soccerplayer. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be the sort of reliable source usually accepted for verification that a league is fully professional or not. It may well be that there isn't a reliable source to verify a claim one way or the other. The default, then, is that the claim being made (that it is fully professional) is what requires a source, per WP:V. But challenging it either way is probably not "original research", yeah? Stalwart111 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like those 12 minutes of glory were not in a professional league, but in the top amateur league in the US. According to the San Diego Gauchos article they played in the USL Premier Development League, which was/is the "top-level men's amateur soccer competition in the United States", and at the Pro Development League's official website all "pro" logos are conspicuously absent. And as we all know 12 minutes in amateur soccer does not make anyone notable. I know that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references, but since the burden of evidence lies on people claiming something it's up to Jordan Older and associates to prove that the available information, that is that the San Diego Gauchos, where he earned his 12 minutes, played in the Professional Development League, which by all available information was and is an amateur league, is false. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauchos got relegated to the PDL, but according to the official website of the body that administered both leagues they were in a pro league when Older had his moment of glory for them. Note that that game is listed under the pro league; the PDL has its own option in the drop-down.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats since accepted as not being threats.

I'd like to call the closing admin's attention to the threats I received by the user Stalwart111 on my talk page.. If I was being offensive, someone should have told me here. I'll take it as a serious threat to stop making my point on this AfD. I wonder what's the User Stalwart's motive behind this?? Usmanwardag (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, there are no threats in what he wrote. He just gave you a friendly advice to stop behaving in a disruptive way. A more friendly advice than you IMHO deserve. As for his motives he's probably fed up with your behaviour on this AfD, just like everyone else here. Do you really seriously believe that your behaviour here is helping Jordan Older? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not Stalwart's representative. You are not the closing admin. You are not the judge. So, please... Usmanwardag (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thomas.W's summary is a good one, so I borrowed it. It was posted on your talk page because calling you out here on a conduct issue wouldn't have been appropriate. But if you want to draw attention to it, be my guest. Most comments here with regard to your conduct have been in lock-step with mine. Stalwart111 23:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rehash of various sources.

Addition to my Aforementioned Summary

I'd like to add little details to the summary I added above.

FuteBol Interior (which is one of the main references) is reliable because (i) The article has an author that is FuteBol Interior Agency. Just to clarify, no specific author is cited in the news related articles. This is an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/asia/prisoners-escape-in-indonesia.html?ref=todayspaper (ii) Blog of the site can be checked which proves the fact that it has an editorial staff of its own. (iii) A huge number of wikipedia entries link to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=futebolinterior.com.br&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 (iv) A large number of sites ranked highly in Alexa link to this site (This is not the most convincing point but still it helps). Usmanwardag (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futebolinterior is history, so you can stop writing about them. If you scroll up a bit in the wall of text you'll see that we've checked the references, with the best sources there are, and all evidence shows that Jordoan Older A) has not played a single match in the Brazilian Serie A (see further up the wall), and B) he has also not played a single match in Sweden (he was there for a test, with a Swedish third division team, training with the team, but was found to be not good enough for them, so he was sent back home again; there's a lot more about that too further up the wall). So all he's got left on his soccer CV is 12 minutes on the pitch, playing in the top US amateur league. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly uninformed, the database you used is incomplete, I checked other players known to play in Brazil and they were not in it either so you can stop with this line of reasoning. The Swedish team has been in various leagues including the Swedish 1st division, but this is irrelevant too. I really don't understand your logic here talking about everything but the notability of the subject of the article!.... FYI: In 1990, Ljungskile SK was playing in Swedish "Division 5" and gained promotion to "Division 4", "Division 3", "Division 2", "Division 1" until they reached Allsvenskan in 1997. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived much of my live in Sweden, I'm fluent in Swedish and I'm a soccer/football fan, so I know a lot about Ljungskile SK, most probably more than you do. Older tried out for a spot on the team in 2005, so what Ljungskile did in 1994-1997 is of no interest, what matters more is that they did not play in the first division when Older visited them (a very short visit, because on June 22 2005 he hadn't yet arrived, and on July 1 2005 he had already left, so he couldn't have spent even a week there...). But even that is of very little interest since the team website clearly states that he was not good enough for them so they weren't interested in is services (I've kindly provided a link to that page on the team website a bit further up, if you're interested; translate.google.com might be able to translate that story for you, it's just a passing mention of Older on that page too though, just like on the one Older provided a link to). As for other players not being in the Brazilian database I would be interested in which players you searched for, and their credentials, just to check your story, because after seeing you in action here I'm not prepared to take your word for anything. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you called the Swedish team 3rd division (which they were not) and you also think you know all about Jordan Older's travel plans 8 years ago, but again, I'm trying to bring you back to the topic at hand, so, to remind you, this is irrelevant, and I've debunked the Brazilian database in the comments below, it's clearly a database that is incomplete, but again this is irrelevant too, because the topic of this Afd is about what the sources say, not what some random database DOESN'T say. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) (to take it in opposite order) You have not debunked the Brazilian database, all you have done is claim that it is incomplete, without proving it (just to remind you, for the Nth time: the burden of proof lies with Jordan Older/you to prove beyond doubt that Jordan Older has played in the Brazilian first division, because according to WP:Verifiability the burden of evidence lies with the person who enters something in the article; and so far you haven't been able to prove that JO has played even a single second in down there), and B) the first story on the Ljungskile team website, the one Older himself linked to as a reference, is dated 22 June 2005 and speaks of him in future tense, as an American who is going to practice with them for a while, while the second story, which I've linked to elsewhere on this wall of text, is dated 1 July 2005 and speaks of him in past tense, as someone who visited them but left again because he wasn't good enough. So you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that he spent less than a week there. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (Continued from Above):

All the discussions about the leagues, the minutes and poking fun and bashing this poor man's reputation are not relevant, each league has its own Wikipedia page with all the needed information (If closing admin has the doubts, he can consult those pages). At this point I would just like to reiterate the main points:

1) Futebol Interior (a respected source) did a front page feature on Jordan Older that said he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil, it also said that he played for teams in Europe and was called up to the USA National Team training camp, this is enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... 2) PV News (another respected source) said he played professional soccer in Europe and Brazil, this is enough to add support to the claims 3) the USL Pro Leauge official stats said he played minutes in a FIFA sanctioned fully professional league, this proves WP:NFOOTBALL 4) official blogs from Sao Paulo FC which are edited and are usable sources acording to wikipedia guides say that he played for 3 Serie A teams in Brazil 5) offical pro team blogs from Sweden say this too... this is too much information to ignore and to doubt. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1: There's no evidence that this guy ever actually appeared in professional matches for any of those clubs, and just being part of a national team training camp isn't grounds for any notability. 2: see point 1. 3:That league isn't fully professional, so that has been debunked. 4 and 5:Again, where's the evidence for any appearances? There's evidence he was signed to these teams, not that he actually appeared in professional matches. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, no and no. A) The three teams he claims to have played for in Brazil were not first division teams at the time Older claims to have played for them (see further up the page), and a search in a Brazilian database with all players who have played in the Brazilian First division returns nothing for Jordan Older; B) the sources only repeat what Jordan Older told them (according to info on the official website of the team in Sweden Older claims to have played for, the one he provided a link to, which was a third division amateur team, Older has not played for them, ever, not a single second), and C) San Diego Gauchos, the team older earned his 12 minutes with, played in the Pro Development League, an amateur league. Period. So you can stop your desperate attempts to save his article and his honour. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SD Gauchos also played in the USL second division, a professional league. That's the one they were in in 2003.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Jordan Older played more than 12 minutes, stop with this bashing of the poor man, the other links showing more minutes are listed above if you need them, so stop with repeating 12 minutes over and over. 2) the league is listed as fully professional in the Wikipedia guide to fully professional leagues, it is also listed as fully professional and FIFA sanctioned on the Wikipedia page about the USL leagues, and this is even not the subject of the discussion. I am trying to bring you back to the topic, can you come with me so we can have a useful discussion about the proper topic of the Afd? 3) That database has been thoroughly debunked, type in Cobi Jones into it, he is known to have played in Brazil after Jordan Older but he doesn't appear in the database either, so the database idea (a good idea) is out of the window, sorry mate! Now let's talk about his notability apart from these 3 IRRELEVENT DISTRACTIONS that you keep repeating, cheers mate. Usmanwardag (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have any notability, so there's nothing to talk about. His tall stories in his selfpromotional article have been thoroughly debunked. The guy lives in a fantasy world (claiming to have played in the Swedish first division when the website of the team, which wasn't even close to the first division, clearly says that all he did was practice a little with them, and that they didn't want him because he wasn't good enough; sheesh, get real...), can't you read? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can read, ha ha... Good one, mate. I'm sure everyone has promoted themselves at some time, nothing wrong with that, but I'm reading in Futebol Interior (which is a reliable source used hundreds of times already on Wikipedia) what it says about Jordan Older playing there in Brazil in the Serie A for Uniao Sao Joao, Paulista FC, and Portugusa Santista and the US National Team, and in the PV news where it says he played professionally. I've seen more than one front page spread about this player. He's not Zlatan Ibrahimovic, but he's clearly a seasoned veteran professional soccer player. Heck there are news articles about him in 4 languages!...... And now he's founded the Ventura Film Festival in 2004 which is largest in Ventura County where he plays Academy Award winning films and has given awards to Academy Award winning actors and celebrities. Sounds notable to me! Usmanwardag (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're trying to change focus here, away from the soccer, now that things have started to become embarassing. But personally I would rate "the largest film festival in Ventura county" (How many film festivals are there in Ventura County? One? Two?)) as even less notable than 12 minutes in an amateur league somewhere. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: Older's built up enough contacts around the world in professional football that he's recently become a professional football/soccer agent and already sent a young American lad to play professionally in the German Bundesliga, according to the PV News (a fully edited print and online newspaper, the author of this article is Travis Perkins.) http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html Sounds like he did the kid a favor by sending him to play professionally in Germany. Usmanwardag (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not notable either. Getting desperate, Jordan? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable and so did several other editors. In fact, the Santa Barbara film festival is only 30 minutes from the Ventura Film Festival which Jordan Older founded in 2004 if you know, the Santa Barbara Film Festival is one of the top film festivals in the world. And I don't know how many film festivals there are in Ventura. This is another one of your irrelevent discussions. I've counted at least 3 irrelevant topics you've brought up. What I do know is that many reliable news sources/newspapers said that Jordan Older played in the Brazilian Serie A with Paulista, Uniao Sao Joao, and Portuguesa Santista, and that he also played in the USL Professional Leauge and that league is listed as fully professional by Wikipedia and FIFA. And on top of being a well traveled and experienced professional soccer player he has founded his own film festival - the Ventura Film Festival and he's recently become a sports agent for King Sports Management. Honestly, that sounds like an interesting (notable) life to me. Note: I did not witness any of this myself I am just reading from reliable news sources that are used in hundreds of other Wikiepdia articles. Cheers mate! Usmanwardag (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today March 8, 1996 "Speedy wing Cobi Jones, 25, was acquired Thursday by the Los Angeles Galaxy. ... The playmaker spent the last several months in Brazil after signing but not playing with Vasco da Gama. USA Today is decent source for something like this I think. Cattivi (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Signing but not getting playtime is something that often happens, especially with younger players. Which is precisely why having signed for a team isn't enough to prove notability, you must also be able to prove that the player has actually got some playtime. And so far Older & Co haven't been able to prove that he actually played in the Brazilian first division, as claimed in the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this isn't the first hoax article I've come across - I've debunked one myself awhile back. This one is no different to that. This guy has flat-out lied about almost everything, and pretty much all of your sources have been analysed to death - and defeated. Why carry on this farce any further, when the self-promotion this guy has done, to the point of making up various things, is evident? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact C.Fred is an admin that already said this is not a hoax, that was already decided. Are you trying to re-hash old topics or talk about the topic at hand? All I know is that I read in reliable sources that Jordan Older has played professional soccer "on 3 continents" like it says in the article... in Brazil, Europe, and the USA. There are reliable news articles written about him (repeating myself a little here) in 4 different languages. The Futebol Interior article is a front page feature just about Jordan Older and says he played for Uniao Sao Joao EC, Paulista FC, and Portuguesa Santista. Now I know this isn't a source but I can see pictures of him playing in Brazil in news papers from Brazil online and I can see pictures and news articles from Europe. I can see these with my own eyes now, because I wasn't in Brazil in 1994 and 1998 or in Europe in 1993 and I can read the newspaper reports. There are also numerous features about Jordan Older and the Ventura Film Festival and the Academy Award winning films and actors that are shown and attend his festival. I can also see the picture of the young professional American soccer player that Jordan Older personally sent to play professional soccer in Germany this year. These are reliable news papers already used hundreds of times on Wikipedia proving this. Usmanwardag (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You seem to be in a loop or something because it's about the third time in as many minutes that you post the same stuff. We're not impressed, and it does not establish any notability, so find something else to do. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't think it should be this difficult to establish notability for a footballer and it is reading this. On the vast majority of footballer articles they have played and are clearly referenced as playing, for notable teams. This article contains smoke screens such as "various professional teams in Europe and the United States". If a writer is clearly trying to show notability these notable clubs would detailed and referenced as would his games played. Aside some low level appearances, they are not.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that he was a child "whiz kid" who started programming computers at the age of 10, or that he writes top secret software for Boeing or that he is a former scientist who speaks five languages? What about all that?? KDS4444^Talk 11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm sure User:Usmanwardag will start posting about that too soon. As you see a few steps up he seems to have realised that the wild, and totally unsubstantiated, claims about a soccer/football career extraordinaire have been thoroughly debunked since he started to post about the Ventura film festival ("the largest film festival in Ventura county"), and Older helping kids start a soccer/football career in Germany, instead of repeating the tall tales about the soccer/football career like a parrot, as he has earlier done (filling in for his hastily departed friend Fussballspieler11). So I'm sure the programming career and the secret software for Boeing is next on his list. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is willing to spend an hour on going through the wall of text above, so as an example of the false/exaggerated claims in the article, and Older's CV, I've provided links and machine translations (courtesy of translate.google.com) that thoroughly debunk his claims about having played for Ljungskile SK in the Swedish first division (in fact Ljungskile didn't even play in the Swedish first division in 2005, when Older visited them, as can be seen in that article here on en-WP, so that in itself is a false claim). The first link (dated 22 June 2005) is the one provided in the article as a reference for having played in Sweden. But as you can see in the translated version all it says is that Older would spend a week with them so that they could see if he was good enough (which is common practice in the soccer world), mentioned in passing at the end of the article under the heading "Anything else of interest?". While the second link (dated 1 July 2005), also on the Ljungskile web site, was found by me. And as you can see in the translated version it says "He was not good enough. (If) we recruit someone, he must be better than what we have and that he was not". So Older's claims about having played professional soccer/football in the first division in Sweden turned out to be nothing more than having spent a few days practicing with a lower division amateur/semi-pro team, and then being turned down because he wasn't good enough. And the references for having had a career in Brazil are of about the same quality as that, with no support whatsoever for the claims of having played (that is having gotten actual playtime, which is what counts) in the Brazilian first division. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin This Freelancer link should shed some light on what is going on in this AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be brought up at WP:COIN or WP:ANI? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Editing conflict)Well, well, well, a gun for hire. Can't say I'm surprised, though. But he's ruining his own credibility by doing it, which is a pity, because noone is going to take him seriously after this. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further paid editing commentary.

I don't understand what you are talking about: the project at that link, whatever it was, has been removed/ deleted. The cached page says something about hiring someone to defend a Wikipedia article but is short on specifics. Could be anybody writing about anything... Or...? KDS4444^Talk 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty damn clear, and pretty damning, when it was online - User:Usmanwardag has been payed to try and keep this article, as have other users, potentially. The fact the page has been pulled after it being mentioned here is pretty clear proof that Usmanwardag shouldn't be editing any more - they're trying to cover their tracks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already know that Jordan Older is following what's happening on this AfD in real time, with images disappearing from his FB account within minutes of being mentioned here, so he probably had all evidence of the contract removed from freelancer.com soon after MrOllie posted the link here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Before it was removed it showed someone with the username "Usmanvardag" (which for some reason bears a striking resemblance to User:Usmanwardag...) getting a "contract" to defend an article here on Wikipedia for pay. For a measly $34. Just a coincidence, or? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usmanwardag (talk · contribs) bid on the job 6 days ago, which happens to be the same day he started diving in to the Jordan Older article, so it's not a what-if, it's a guaranteed paid editting scenario. While paid editting is not forbidden, coupled with his belligerent attitude, he is very much acting in an inappropriate and combative manner on this AfD. Also, just in case, a screencapped the freelance job on my phone to verify all the info I just stated. Ish dar ian 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting the project to vanish if whomever it was was keeping an eye on this AFD (That seems confirmed now) so I also took a screenshot, which I've uploaded here. - MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha ha. I was wondering why he suddenly changed tack, accepted my admonishment on his talk page and then opted for radio silence. Now I know. Bravo MrOllie! Stalwart111 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break Three: Post paid-editing drama

Delete Non-notable footballer, fails GNG. Ish dar ian 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado about nothing that hasn't already been done to death.

Nice conspiracy theories guys. Even the person who created the Afd (KDS4444) and I have both seen the newspapers from 4 different countries Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, USA and they mention at least 7 fully professional teams such as Uniao Sao Joao, Paulista FC, Portguesa Santista, Fluminese, Sao Paulo FC, Campinas FC, Guarani FC, US National Team, UCSB, UCLA, San Jose Clash, San Diego Gauchos,, Ljungskille (I have checked they are a full professional team), and more. I have seen the list of the leauges from 3 different continents where he played and they include Brazilian Serie A, Paulista Serie A, Swiss Cup, MLS, USL Professional Leauge, Germany, a professional league in Sweden, and more. Even KDS4444 has linked to these news articles herself. So despite all of your interesting conspiracy theories I can not deny that he must be truth to the claims in the article. I can read feature articles in Surfer Magazine about Jordan Older and how he founded the Ventura Film Festival himself in 2004 and others listing how it is the largest film festival in Ventura County. I can also see videos of him here at his festival. www . youtu . be/s29IulH_yf4 and here with some very famous "Academy Award winning" and "Golden Globe winning" stars at the Ventura Film Festival www . youtu . be/7P08SfJK-48 and here www . youtu . be/GHv9HLEX6Rc. See all the fans and stars? So I'm sorry I just can't believe in conspiracy theories. I just don't think he faked the entire cast of West Side Story standing next to him and news articles from 4 different countries, in 4 different languages. I even see pictures of Pele and him with David Beckham HERE & HERE. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your employer seems to be getting more and more desperate. But whatever could have been notable about him has been proven to be fake and what little is left is non-notable, so you can stop flogging the dead horse. And no-one gets a Wikipedia article for appearing in a fan photo with Pelé or David Beckham. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is fake you can see proof that the Ventura Film Festival is the biggest film festival in Ventura County here http://venturafilmfestival.org and you can read a recent feature about Jordan Older in Futebol Interior (a major news source from Brazil being used hundreds of times on Wikipedia) here http://www.futebolinterior.com.br/news/259995+Ex-jogador_vira_empresario_e_comeca_a_ganhar_espaco_no_futebol Usmanwardag (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that he is working as a sports agent with King Sports Management, I can see the 19 year old American that he arranged to sign professionally in the German Bundesliga here <redacted link> . I think that would be hard to fake, the author of the news article is Travis Perkins and it also says that Jordan Older played professionally in Europe and Brazil (just like the other articles from various countries say). Usmanwardag (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of that makes him notable, so stop it. (Selling your soul, and losing all of your credibility, for a measly $34. Sheesh...) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(And...) Oh no, you broke his rule: "This photo is copyrighted, linking, copying, saving is strictly prohibited by law." Or do employees get an exemption from his entirely-made-up copyright laws? I got my photo taken with Cristiano Ronaldo once. Am I notable? Stalwart111 08:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 had broken his privacy and copied his private (non-soccer) photos from his personal Facebook profile many times earlier see above, she also said she saw the newspaper articles from at least 3-4 different countries proving what's said in the article, remember? She said she saw the Swiss Cup article and that she read Swiss and that she read the ones from Brazil and that she read Brazilian and more. I think she even downloaded them for safe keeping because she said he was cute. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reading Swiss" was a joke, because there is no such thing as a "Swiss" language (FYI there are four official languages in Switzerland, German, French, Italian and Rätoromanisch, each spoken as the primary language in a different part of the country), and all of the rest was also a joke. And your posts are becoming sillier and sillier. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted the link, based on the above comment. Should Usmanwardag be taken to COIN or ANI over this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link is not copyrighted, the copyright is on his Facebook pictures this link shows the picture of the 19 year old American that Jordan Older and King Sports Management sent to play in the Germany Bundesliga: http://www.pvnews.com/sports/article_ed96e25e-76da-11e2-a086-001a4bcf887a.html It also says Jordan Older played professionally in Europe and Brazil just like the other articles. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright claim was actually attached to the Facebook photos (strange given numerous test cases have demonstrated that your Facebook photos belong to Facebook). But it doesn't matter. The COI is obvious and now extensively documented. Off to ANI I'd say, per WP:NOTHERE. Stalwart111 08:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin: The original Afd nominator, KDS4444 herself, has stated that she has seen proof of the claims made in additional references/articles, she's even copied and linked them here for everyone to see. This is a perfectly good reason to keep the article. Usmanwardag (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is rapidly becoming as disruptive as Fussballspieler11's behaviour before his block. Maybe it's time for you to take some forced time off too? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Enough of these shenanigans; are you getting paid by the word, or for the result? Kilopi (talk) 08:20, 16 July 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. Links provided by HotHat have demonstrated sufficient coverage as required by GNG - but the content in them should be added to the article when possible to improve the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everfound (band)

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

Does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was shocked browsing through here to see this band listed. Given, the page is poorly done, but I can vouch that they have some songs in circulation on national radio stations (K-LOVE). Just upon a quick Google search, they've been covered and/or interviewed by several web magazines and notable websites, and are signed to a major label, which is heavily promoting their upcoming album. They've been around for several years, and have had several releases. —Maktesh ^(talk) 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have met BAND No. 1 with CCM Magazine, Indie Vision Music first interview, Indie Vision Music second interview and Christian Music Zine interview. It meets with GNG because all these sources are reliable secondary sources who are independent of the artist themselves, and they have been met with significant coverage. Furthermore, their new album Everfound has been reviewed by BREATHEcast, Christian Music Zine, HM, Jesus Freak Hideout twice, New Release Tuesday and Worship Leader. This band is notable and noteworthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe that album reviews meet the requirement of making the band notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for posting those, HotHat. I was getting ready to go collect the links! And no, reviews don't make a band notable in and of themselves, but it shows coverage and attention from notable and reliable sources. —Maktesh ^(talk) 14:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I just added in the reviews for good measure, but the first four sources in the first sentence make them N, GNG and BAND.HotHat (talk) 21:57, 16 July 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 Rocket Lab. There's a fair bit of content in this article and I couldn't decide what to keep, so I've redirected, and merging can be done from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beck (engineer)

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

does not appear to be yet notable DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears more generative:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Tim bates (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent from sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Rocket Lab, the company he founded. No need to delete. Can be noted in the article on his company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rocket Lab. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rocket Lab otherwise not notable NealeFamily (talk) 20:08, 15 July 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. Secret ^account 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Heathside Athletics Club

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

fails WP:ORG and GNG. article has one primary source. and no substantial coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It mayt not yet be a good article, but we have articles on six other (apparently similar) clubs in London and a lot more nationwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 25 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:15, 1 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNews archive and Gbooks are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 9 July 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. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inside

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

Previously deleted late last year as non-notable. Article seems sufficiently different to not be speedy eligible, so asking community to evaluate. Camw (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources citing it as international project management software and technology awards. Botidr 08:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete As far as I can tell, the awards are for software within the Lotus Notes community, not for project management software in general. This is not sufficient for notability. Since the WSJ article seems to be merely an announcement of the awards, I'm not sure its relevant for notability either. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wall Street Journal and multiple other awards should be enough on this one for notability. FifthCircuit (talk) 00:32, 4 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again broadly as per my position on the previous AfD. The WSJ piece that has been added is attributed there to "Marketwired" which describes itself as a "Newswire service for online press release distribution" [22] and is an announcement of an award from TopTenREVIEWS; neither the award nor the press release are clear evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though a few references should be cleaned up, subject received multiple awards deeming notability and there are numerous reliable sources noting this project management software. Rhaulumajik (talk) 16:13, 11 July 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. WP:CSD#G5 - created by a sockpuppet of User:Morning277 JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Brian Dawe

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

References are self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG Iniciativass (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person per WP:N, WP:R and WP:ARTIST--Benfold (talk) 06:21, 3 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article was created by a sock User:Sublimeharmony--Iniciativass (talk) 20:48, 14 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All India Station Masters' Association

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

non notable trade union.In my opinion even if there are are more than 1000 members it cannot be considered notable unless it has significant press coverage.If such a page is encouraged then all such trade unions of government departments will be motivated to get their own page Uncletomwood (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many news references such as this one from the Times of India: [23]. The union's role in such strikes as the 1974 railway strike in India has been noted in at least two books: [24], [25]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 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, L Faraone 02:14, 9 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 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. Secret ^account 20:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chance Garage

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

A 4 min. documentary short that has garnered no coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. The film has completed but apparently has received no coverage. Lacking confirmation of its screening, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This 4 minute film was released a year ago, according to the article and IMDb. I don't see WP:TOOSOON or WP:NFF even applying. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that IMDB does not actually tell us the film was released. The film's data page states the project moved from "in production" to "completed" and provides that the project had its "Status Updated: 30 June 2012"... but no release date. And apart from the short existing, other information in the article is unverifiable. I cannot find it shortlisted for an award at the Northern Nights Film Festival in London... and with apologies, I cannot even confirm in reliable sources that THAT festival even exists. Neither can I find reliable sources confirming this short being in any way involved with WorldKids International Film Festival.[26] I The AFD template's Find sources give us lots of false positives for businesses or television episodes by that same name.[27] In focusing the search, I include the film + director's name and find a lot of primary sources such as wordpress blogs speaking about how the film was "shortlisted" at various places, but nothing deemed as reliable. Same when including that of the "star".[28] We can watch the film online, but cannot independently confirm that it has screened at any festival anywhere. No disagreement from me that it definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NF and its sub-sections. For a film that has been completed, is unverifiable as being screened at festivals, theaters, or television, and has no coverage in reliable sources, I think that my acknowledging WP:NFF and TOO SOON and that this project has not yet but might one day receive coverage, are the kindest of considerations I might opine for this director self-described "documentary-style reality promo". A delete is a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And okay... the "Northern Nights Film Festival" does exist, but itself fails our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 2 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 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, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:10, 17 July 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. Sandstein 06:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electroacoustic

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

All three dab entries are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the guideline at WP:PTM (which is essentially the argument the nominator is using). Dricherby (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any of the concerns covered at PTM to apply here. The title is a likely search term, and it's reasonable to think that any reader might be looking for the information on any of the three targets included. Alternatively one of the targets may be chosen as the primary topic, and then a hatnote added for the others, but there's no point in turning this into a red link — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redlinks are an issue. Nothing should be linking to this disambiguation page although several pages do. Even if the dabpage is kept, those articles would be improved by linking straight to the correct page. Dricherby (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I was using "red link" liberally. What I mean is that there's no point in putting a deletion notice instead of a DAB/redirect, which serves to assist the reader to find what they are looking for. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argument not to use in Afds: WP:ITSUSEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the text, "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'", which seems to be exactly the argument that Frankie is making... Dricherby (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am afraid I don't understand the rationale for the nomination. Most entries on DAB pages are partial matches to the DAB'd topic. WP:PTM is meant to prevent a DAB page becoming a list of special cases or particular instances of the same topic, where there is no possible confusion. But in this case, the topic might describe an industrial consortium, a musical instrument, a physics phenomenon, a Loyola band, an improvisational technique or a genre of music--all widely varying topics that need disambiguation. As a DAB page, this page seems well suited to its purpose. Note that there is an associated DAB page, Electroacoustics, in a similar situation. --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most dab entries are not partial matches - that's pretty much the point of WP:PTM, isn't it? Several of the entries here just use electroacoustic as an adjective (improvisation, phenomena and transducer) and are definitely unsuitable. I've just nominated Electro-Acoustic Research for deletion as failing WP:ORG. The Ensemble would AFAIK not be called just Electroacoustic, hence fails the primary test for inclusion. That leaves electroacoustic music, which I consider the primary topic, and the guitar, which seems to me to be a weak possibility. (I'm no musician, but I've never heard the term used to denote a guitar.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Per WP:PTM, dabpages are supposed to disambigate between things that could plausibly have the same article title, not just things that have the same word in the title. See, for example, Card, where most of the things described there could plausibly be called just "a card" in everyday speech. Could any of the things on this page be called just "electroacoustic"? More than one of them? Dricherby (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the branch of acoustical engineering to the page. That does seem to be refered to as just "electroacoustics". The others don't: even Electroacoustic music uses the word only as an adjective ("electroacoustic music", "electroacoustic composer", "electroacoustic works") in all but one instance; the articles linked from there also seem to be quite uniform in saying "electroacoustic music" rather than just "electroacoustic" (if they mention the term at all, which most don't). Dricherby (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think a valid outcome is to determine a primary topic and redirect, but my point is that having "Electroacoustic" leading nowhere is simply a poor outcome, and a disservice to the reader. As for PTM, I can agree that an electroacoustic guitar wouldn't be referred to plainly as "An electroacoustic" (btw, I'm no musician either, but I'm sure I've heard them being called that), but when it comes to the music or the engineering it is something that could be referred to plainly as "electroacoustics" within the context of the corresponding literature. I think the key part is "when there is no significant risk of confusion or reference", plus that I read PTM as mainly concerned with the idea that DABs are not meant to be like automated search engine results, and thus susceptible to be cluttered with irrelevant entries, but educated, hand-picked results instead. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 3 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM. Let the search results guide the reader to relevant articles. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 16 July 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. People disagree about whether the sourcing of this Swabian word is sufficient for inclusion. Sandstein 06:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muggeseggele

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

Article has no establishment of Notability and is basically a dictionary article.

See WP:NAD ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. As I've discussed at the article's talk page, most of the content is dictionary stuff (e.g. etymology, English counterparts). The claims to notability are that 1) a famous businessperson mentioned it as an example of the Swabian dialect, and 2) it's taught in classes. I do not believe either of these claims establishes notability for a word or expression. Note: I also made some suggestions at the article talk page about places this content could be merged to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Since I posted this original comment, the article has been updated, and basically two new claims to notability have added: 3) some sports teams use this word as their name, and 4) readers in a newspaper poll liked this word. Regarding (3), this of course has no bearing on notability: a word is a word, and who uses it or how often they use it has no bearing on notability; the only thing that has bearing on notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. (For instance, if there were substantial controversy or discussion about a sports teams' having used a certain word as its name, then it might be notable, although it might also be more appropriate to be part of the sports team's article or merged to an article about the controversy, see e.g. Cleveland Indians#Nickname and logo controversy and Washington Redskins#American Indian mascot controversy.) Regarding (4), this one is more open to interpretation I guess, but in my opinion as an editor I do not think reader polls are evidence of notability. A reader poll (regardless of how "large" the newspaper is--asides about how large a newspaper is don't even belong in an article, it's just there to try to drum up notability) can show that lots of people know a word or lots of people like a word, but they don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, and as I have said above, the fact that a lot of people know or use or like or dislike a word does not make it notable. Significant coverage in sources (not just polls) would do that, although I can't find that kind of coverage in the sources provided; for instance, the source cited (currently in the lede) for "Muggeseggele has an iconic character and is one of the most preferred Swabian idioms" appears to be just an interview with one person, who mentions the word once as a word that he likes, defines it (saying he thinks it sounds nice) and says little more about it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ell was originally a cubit, later replaced by the cloth-ell or 'double ell'.

This article is truely written in the style of an encyclopedia and does not fit into a dictionary at all. The closest English term is "gnat's cock" or a "gnat's dick". Although it is possible to measure the diameter of this organ of a gnat, nobody would assume that this term is used as a precise dimension such as a millimetre. However, some Suebians believe, that a previously vague unit equals now the average length of 0.22 millimetres. If one follows your request for deletion, you would need to delete also ell and Foot (unit). Could it be that the slightly embarrasing function of this body part is the real reason for requesting its deletion? Please keep this article! --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article sghould be read before coming up with claims like "no notability established". To the contrary, various (sourced) information about its notability is being provided

Iconic character, stated e.g. by Wolfgang Wulz as President of Verein Schwäbische Mundart (Association of the Swabian Tongue)
One of the most preferred Swabian idioms.
It has been dubbed as the smallest Swabian measurement unit.
One of the very rare instances of sexually themed abusive words in the German language
Prominent example of peculiar admirable Swabian Onomatopoeia.
Use to signify a Swabian cultural influence on others
The term is being used as example for must-know Swabian vocabulary in courses of Swabian as a foreign language in Tübingen.

I understand this as a sort of WP:POINT maneuvre to torpedo a DYK nomination, whch was already on the waiting list. Serten (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NearEMPTiness and Serten: please do not keep trying to discredit editors who disagree with you by making unfounded speculations about their motives. We have already discussed at length the reasons behind my concerns, and it is already abundantly clear that you think the claims establish notability and I do not. There is no reason for you to suggest that any editors are trying to delete this article because it's about penises or because of anything having to do with DYK (indeed, the status of an article on DYK has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on an AfD debate; "it's notable because it's been nominated for DYK" is not at all a valid argument against deletion). You have no evidence to suggest that and it is completely unrelated to the discussion; please stay on topic and address the arguments, rather than the editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had a merge discussion first and now its about deletion, please understand that this lacks consistency and I uphold the notion aboit WP:point. Furthermore you have not substantiated your claims, your statements a) b) purporte a lack of sourcing which is easily ruled out by reading the article. Serten (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) PS.: BTW - have a look on the German Wikipedia Main page de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Schon_gewusst, today and tomorrow Muggeseggele is being featured there. Serten (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about lack of sources. Also, the status of an article on another language Wikipedia is not relevant here; different Wikipedias have different content guidelines. Finally, the person who nominated this for deletion is a different editor than I (the person who started the merge discussion) am; of course different people sometimes have different opinions, and it's quite inappropriate to you to suggest that either of us has bad or POINTy motives just because we don't hold the same opinions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss the claims, which imho are substantiated by various sources. My count is at least 7 claims of notability, yours is about 2 and youre doubting them as well. How to explain the difference? Serten (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that.

This appears to be a dictionary like entry in a self published e-book. Hardly a WP:RS and does not establish notability.
The only thing in this article that refers to the word in question is a statement that this is one of the person being interviewed's favorite words. Certainly is not the subject of the article (which is what WP:N requires... not simply that the subject is mentioned within an article)
This one again is simply a mention of the word in the article. It is simply a funny way to introduce the article, which is actually about a seminar and was the answer to a question at the seminar. Does not establish notability.
This reference only has the word once in the entire book, and I could not find a translation. I have no way to establish notability from this source, but I wouldn't rest a case on this source one way or another.
See previous note.
This reference is completely irrelevant and needs to be removed.
Again, basically just a definition...
See number 3, same reference
Again, the article is not about the subject of the Wikipedia entry, just a passing reference to a similar English term.
See 12... not about the subject, the English equivalent phrase is simply used, not discussed.

So it appears that you don't actually have any sources that actually establish notability... since none of the sources in the article qualify as such. This word may be notable for German Wikipedia, but it is not notable for English Wikipedia. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Never heard of Langenscheidt? Calling a Langenscheidt dictionary a "self published e-book" is ridiculous.
Wulz is head of the association for the swabian dialect, clear indication of iconic status
The report about the seminar puts muggaseggele on the titel and indicates iconic status in the text
Try as well Muckenseckel, there are different ways to write it, gauger elaborates on it as well, long entry, clear indication of notability in a scholarly book
see above
I doubt so, gauger is clear about the topic and challenges Dundes Thesis
see above
Dostert - clearly indication of use and value and iconic status
petershagen - clear indication of use value and measurement by expert
Gnats cock is refered to as a sort of "see also" entry, completely appropriate and adding value

Strong Keep Serten (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that resources about language happen to use a word as an example of dialect differences is not an indicator of notability. Look at English for comparison; in the United States there is regional variation in whether people call this "soda" or "pop", and there are literally hundreds of articles and websites devoted entirely to this topic (see e.g. http://www.popvssoda.com/, [29], [30], [31]), but that does not necessarily mean any of these words are notable (and indeed, none of them have Wikipedia articles). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Muggeseggele and Muckenseckel in german is similar to the one between Potatoe and Potato, so pop/soda does not apply. There are difference between sources like Gauger, langenscheidt and Wurz and pop/soda bloggers. Gauger is a serious scholar and the book in question is noteable [32], Langenscheidt an international active publishing house doing encyclopedic books and Wulz the head of the Swabian dialect association[33]. Pop/soda bloggers are just pop/soda bloggers. Serten (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the books may be notable... the word muggeseggele is not the SUBJECT of the books, they are only mentioned in passing as a single example of the swabian dialect. This would be akin to saying that "sneeker" is a notable word because some language professor mentions that it is only in New England that it is used... ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you thnk that? Gauger wrote various pages in his book about the linguistics of the word, thats not a dictionary. If you ask for a book / monography just about muggaseggele, sorry thats a Bridge to far. If you like to see a suitable example, take the entry about How (greeting), best the de:Howgh. Noteable, for sure. Muggaseggele is either used as a measurement unit and to adresse the member of a male fly. Serten (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enjoys a long achieved cult status. See references. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. A word that may have an iconic status in German doesn't necessarily make the grade in English. The article is about a German word, sourced almost entirely in German. The three or so English citations do "bugger all" in defining or documenting the word's status in English usage – in fact they merely point to the use of "gnat's crotch" without drawing any specific reference to the German term. Pardon my French ;-), but we quite rightly don't see entries to "connard" or "pédé" for that same reason despite the fact these are equally "iconic". Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You refer to Pédé, thats related to enWP Faggot. I guess the discussion is more about Gnats cock than about Muggeseggele and the article doesnt speak white enough for some guys. Serten (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term that comes from the Alemannic dialect, enjoying long time in the German cult status and is standard knowledge for anyone who is interested in Swabia and its inhabitants and its culture. See references. --Jocian (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a word is "common knowledge" does not in of itself make that word notable (see WP:IKNOWIT and WP:Subjective importance).
  The editors arguing 'keep' also keep making reference to the "iconic" or "cult" status of the word, which as far as I can tell is basically a personal, subjective judgment. The source provided in the article doesn't actually make this claim; as far as I can tell from Google Translate, it's an interview with one individual saying that he likes that word. Other sources that have been mentioned include those just listing the word as a well-known example a word in this dialect; that is hardly unusual or impressive for language materials (any resources about any given dialect will mention some key examples of words from that dialect). Sources like these are not sufficient to establish "iconic" status of a word--and even if they were, I am not sure that something as vague as "iconic" status of a word directly translates into notability anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had this article in much smaller and less sourced version on the German art for deletion page and then at the german Did you know. Now we have to tell a blind guy about the colour of milk - if you dont get the meaning - godness, google translate - why dont you ask somebody who knows about stuff? Serten (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you that the presence or absence of the article on another Wikipedia has no bearing on its notability here. Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria (for example, editors on French Wikipedia chose to include a dictionary of Han characters on their Wikipedia, something which would never happen on en-wiki).

As for Google Translate--yes, I'm not a speaker of German, so I use what resources I have available to try and gauge what is in the references, while being aware of the potential limitations of automatic translation. Many Wikipedia editors do this. Are you suggesting that editors who don't speak German do not have the right to participate in this discussion? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm think I would have to leave then. Serten (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally left off the word "don't" in my message, and have corrected it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 9 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some further links to underline the claim of "iconic use". I still dont get the point why notability is still doubted. Serten (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the content you added is extremely trivial. A sport team using this word as their name, or a person using this word in a sentence, is far from establishing notability. These are examples of the word being used, not examples of the word being discussed in reliable sources--you can read about the use-mention distinction to understand this difference. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to be a notable usage, certainly not in English, nor other than trivial. While this is not a pure hoax, there is a student-joke quality to this material that basically just brings the project into disrepute. There is no censorship here, just a preference for worthwhile material. The article is basically about a word, so WP:NOTDICT may well apply also. The comparisons with possible English counterparts suggest WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Various notions of notability presented. No notable usage in English is a sort of speak white argument and I stronly deny that being valid. It might have a sort of student joke character like Jakob Maria Mierscheid which is noteable and finds its way into fandom and newspapers. And yes, a sports team (and in case of ultimate, its the one that hosted a world championship) using the gunners or the Muggenseggele as name is clearly an indication of notability. Serten (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already !voted above; to help keep things organized for the admin who will be reading this discussion, please indent this comment and remove the bolded "keep". Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a duplicate !vote. And that isn't what Wikipedia calls evidence of notability, no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasnt aware that the votes of the previous list are counted here again. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable word. Examples of usage or brief mention do not establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaugers elaborate address of the phraseology and etymology of Mucken seckel/ Muggeseggele / and Seggel is not to be called an "entry" or brief notion. As well are references to the word and in the way they are annotated to Wulz and Lindner in major newspaper clear indications of notability and NOT mentioning. Serten (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References show significance. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to elaborate on how they show significance? As you can see from the discussion above, clearly some editors think the references establish notability and some don't. So just saying it's notable (when that point is the whole crux of the disagreement) without giving any reason why, is not terribly helpful. See WP:JNN. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have the impression that anybody with ability to read German has a quick look on the sources, nods, grins and is completely in line with the notability, while it seems to be a problem for non natives. I have done lists, explained the high scholarly standing of Gauger, the role of Wurz and Lindner - completely lost. It is a case of german humour, but seems not to work with limeys at all. Big sigh. Serten (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please refrain from ad hominem remarks. Wikipedia has an explicit policy (WP:NPA) saying "comment on content, not on contributors". rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - To explain my point, have a look at [=taxon_concept&commit=Filter Hans-Peter Tschorsnigs EOL Entry], the guy who measured the length of the Muggenseggele is a quite serious scholar - the extremly deadpan humour of the (of cause noteable) fact which goes in the same direction as Stone louse seems to be lost in translation. Serten (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        This article is now clearly seen and admitted to be a silly piece of attempted humour. The only appropriate outcome of AfD is deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:JNN for this comment, not terribly helpful, like most of the comments of the deletion supporters. A lot of emotions and prejudice. --Papa Kern (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall the Wikipedia policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Comments of that kind are unacceptable here at AfD or anywhere else. However, my comment was made quietly and dispassionately, and on reflection I stand by it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about your comments? --Papa Kern (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+Agreed. It seems some guys miss the difference between an WP hoax and a RL hoax. This is a German RL hoax AND a real item and has been measured being 0,22 mm long by an scholarly expert. Silly piece of attempted humour. Please be reminded that german hunour exists and comes in small portions. here is one ;) Serten (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of humour, German or any other kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may have a sort of Gore Effect or Dementor cloud around them, making humour non-existant around their perimeter. However I found Humour exists, German humour seems to be a valid entry, and Muggeseggele is a classical example of a xxxx in trousers deadpan twinkle of the elsewhere mercilessly efficient humourless German engineer in the best traditions of Mierscheid law. Stop kidding please, zis is serious business. Serten (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects the knowledge of actually existing phenomena − and the lemma informed about not only a sense of humor expressed in a German region, but it illustrates the production and reception history of a typical German phenomenon. The dialect expression as described in the lemma appears trivial at first glance, but he shows how humor in German manifested: the vernacular, which is always interested in a sexually connoted subject, teams up here with a fact-based science, on typical German kind of like "stubborn thoroughness", "perfect accuracy" and "dry humor that plays with complex hints".

The phenomenon described in the article is a little key to understanding how "tick" the Germans. More can not do an encyclopedia when they explained a phenomenon in a different language culture and society as here. --Jocian (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key question seems to be: Is Muggeseggele relevant for speakers of the English language?

Did Obama and Merkel diskuss Muggeseggele during any of their meetings. No But maybe in the very, very, very secret talks? Lets ask the NSA!
Was Muggeseggele the last word Hitler said, before he shot himself? No. Actually he did say:" Verdommt! Verdommt! Wie fonktionniert döse domme Pis... "
Is there any English newspaper or book which refers to Muggeseggele? Very probably not.
Is it true that Muggeseggele is a common householdword in Germany? "Welches Wort?" "Muggeseggele!" "Hab' ich noch nie gehört...was ist das?" No, it is not.
Can you understand German linguistic humor without knowing Muggeseggele? Yes. Berufsverbot or Weltschmerz are much better examples and study objects.
Without knowing Muggeseggele, can you find access and understand the works of Kafka? Definitively Yes. But still very depressing. Try reading something from T. Pratchett..!

I would use similar tests of relevance for an expression used by Southerners for a defined part in catfish intestine anatomy which is used for VERY funny purposes on saturday nights after dinner (...) and which is supposed to enter the German language Wikipedia.

Muggeseggele is großartig (great) for the alemannic WP; it is grenzwertig (borderline) for the German language WP; and it is absolutely irrelevant for the Spanish, Portugese, French, Japanese and Polish WP. Oh ja, auch für die Englischsprachige... delete Peace GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Geezer: While I of course agree with you that the article should be deleted, I'm not sure your rationale is quite valid. The general notability guideline on English Wikipedia is not language-specific--that is to say, if something meets the notability guideline in one part of the world or one group of speakers, then that is enough to meet the guideline for English Wikipedia. (See the second paragraph of WP:UNKNOWNHERE.) There aren't things that en-wiki would consider notable for de-wiki (or any other Wikipedia) but not en-wiki. (That being said, there can be differences across Wikipedias because some of them have different notability criteria; but that's a different issue; from the perspective of en-wiki, something notable in one language is notable in any language).

That being said, I still believe the article still does not meet the notability criterion--for the other reasons that are outlined above. I just wanted to clarify the criterion for you here and see whether or not you want to reconsider your !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stay with my point. On top of it - comparing the other units in this category - the category "Customary units of measurement" seems inappropriate/wishful thinking. It means "a wee bit" which you find in Wiktionary. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult is the way but to knowledge. This all seekers deserve a whole Muggeseggele more than a Quantum of Solace. That's the difference − a Muggeseggele. --Jocian (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rjanag, that geezers point misses completely the conditions for notability in any Wikipedia. Take zh:阿尔伯特广场 (德累斯顿) in the chinese WP, an article about a pittoresque street crossing in Dresden. There is no rule that confines notability to the language of the sources provided nor wether a certain fact is present in a nation or culture, we wont erase Women's rights in arabic for such reasons neither. Geezer is in contrary to me no (German) "Southerner". I see the useability of Muggeseggele in presenting swabian humour to an audience, that might (dream to) drive cars, that is actually being treated with medical devices, that wears textiles seamed by machinery which all is being produced in a region that takes a Muggeseggele as a unit for diligence. Serten (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely different kind of situation though. This is specifically about a word in a specific language, not a universal concept like Women's Rights, or a geographic ___location that exists in the world. A slang word in a minor German dialect is not anymore notable in English than the slang usage of the word "Y'all" or "Aint" would be on German wikipedia. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, it is NOT a slang or four letter wordword, and ist has a concept behind, I assume gnats dick lacks that. Muggeseggele can be used towards children, e.g. in the website Ein Fall für B.A.R.Z. ist being explained like that. Mostly MS is being used as a measurement unit, (move the picture a MS to the left or technically "the cabling is a MS too close to the heater according EN 60335-2-27" or even we still have a MS of time). Futhermore Baden Württemberg / the region where u find the expression as a state would have 2 Million people more than than the Kingdom of Sweden, so far for minor. Serten (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the number of speakers who use a given word has no bearing on notability. English also has many comparable words used by even more people (e.g. "the cabling is a mite too close"), and none of them are notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm tell me one that has been elected being the most beautiful word in a regional dialect? 2009 that happend to Muggeseggele after a survey of readers of Stuttgarter Nachrichten, thats a serious daily newspaper with a circulation of 200.000, [34]. Serten (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it incredibly notable IN THAT REGION and THAT LANGUAGE. However, it still is not notable at all in English. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you go so far to ask for the deletion of Swabian German ? Which regulation about region and language allows you to stop Muggeseggele being mentioned there and having its own article as well in the enWP? Serten (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing. An article about a language itself is different than an article about a word within a language. As far as regulations about region and language, it's common sense. We don't have articles about every peculiar word or idiom in every language, because it isn't notable in THIS language. Nor does the German Wiki have articles about peculiar words or idioms in English, because it is not notable in German contexts. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You been ever to the german WP? de:On Bullshit de:Gore-Effekt, de:Atari Democrat, de:Howgh ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at those, shall we?

de:On Bullshit - This isn't about the word Bullshit, it is about a book written about the term Bullshit. Not analogous.
de:Gore-Effekt - This is a term that has been used on the floor of the UN, so it has international usage. Not analogous.
de:Atari Democrat - This is the name of a political movement, so it has international bearing (since political movements often have international visibility and impact). Similar I would think to "Tea Party" in terms of it's broad necessity. Not analogous.
de:Howgh - This term is used in German song lyrics and therefore it is reasonable to have it represented on the German Wiki. If you survey 100 Americans, 99 of them will have no idea what the word means, and will likely think it is somehow related to Harry Potter (Muggle). Not analogous. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.

I think the most important difference is the use/mention issue. On BS is about a very american concept - however it found its way in the deWP.

The article isn't on the concept, or the use of the word. It is about a book. Not at all the same thing.

Here we talk about usage. "At our Indian premises, everybody knows what a muggaseggele is" by a major german industrialist is not the UN but international as well

"by a major german industrialist" - It might be notable on the India Wiki then... but even that would be a stretch.

Atari Democrat compare de:Blue Dog Coalition, rather local, still notable;) Gauche caviar / de:Toskana-Fraktion would be more international

Again... about a political movement. The movement has representatives from all over the US, hardly local.

de:Howgh de:Indianerbild im deutschen Sprachraum (How germans identify with American Indians) would be worth to translate. I would love to have a source on your survey and mention it in Howgh! Since the Brothers Grimm, germans tend to be more interested in others folklore. Serten (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. That doesn't change anything. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See last paragraph from Serten (Stuttgarter Nachrichten). --Papa Kern (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite having edited the article early on, I stayed out of this because I couldn't make up my mind, and was hoping someone would turn up at least one solid reference discussing the English terms, to balance the fact the Swabian term is demonstrated in the article to be frequently discussed as an exemplar of the dialect. Looking at it again now, I still think it's very close, but the Stuttgarter Nachrichten poll article puts it over the top for me. In my opinion the article now contains enough references to reliable sources discussing it - as opposed to passing mentions of what it means, or examples of its use - to pass general notability (and to remain an article at the Swabian title and predominantly about the Swabian term). Immaterial that the corresponding English terms don't have such discussion in reliable sources; that just means the article shouldn't be moved to an English title. This version of Wikipedia is in English, but that doesn't mean it covers only English-speaking topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated my !vote rationale at the top of this discussion to reflect changes made to the article since my original !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjanag The "one person" you mentioned is the President of the Swabian dialect association. That doesnt give him scholarly authority, (however the lengthy entry in Gaugers linguistic book does), but he speaks for a larger community. A possible compromise would be to move the entry to Swabian and Aegidius and to provide a redirect from here. But I assume it has a right of its own. PS.: I found some entries on scholar and think they add notability. It seems that foreigners (germans and non germans) in Baden Württemberg normally dont adapt to the accent but use some specific swabian expressions as a cultural code to show will to integrate respectively their status as part of the local community. Muggenseggele is mentioned and used as one of those specific expressions. I understood from the discussion that I had made an error in so far in coming up with "use" instead of "notion". However this indicates notion, since Muggenseggele is not only being used as "a tiny bit" but as well to signify "I may have come from elsewhere but now I belong to this region." Serten (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been so far expamded and contains a lot of useful and non-trivial information that it cannot be merged with another page. A deletion would not be fair according to Wikipedia's objectives and rules. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:27, 20 July 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 Ashley Kirilow. There is no consensus to delete outright. Normal editing can now determine what, if anything, from this article's history should be merged to Ashley Kirilow, or if that article should instead be moved to this title. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change for the Cure

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

Does not seem to pass notability criteria. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should be a speedy. No credible assertion of notability. Taroaldo ✉ 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. ~~Speedy~~ delete - there is no evidence whatsoever that this 'charity' has any notability independent of the individual concerned - this looks to me like a misguided attempt to bypass WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how BLP would come into play here. This article is about a charity. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:BLP policy then - it applies to any material relating to a living person on Wikipedia, whether in a biography or other article, or indeed on a talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Which aspect of the BLP policy is this stub violating, WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't apply, as the subject of the article isn't a person. Surely you aren't suggesting Wikipedia can't have articles about WP:ORGs founded by still living people simply because such articles might make the people involved look bad, are you? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, a misguided attempt to get around WP:BLP policy. Fortunately, policy doesn't permit such transparent Wikilawyering - WP:BLP policy applies whether an article is about a real person, or a fictitious organisation - what matters is the content, not the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, the article is not about a charity. There was no charity....just a fraud. The title is misleading, and the article creator even added the charity stub. Seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 02:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an organization set up primarily to commit fraud? Pfft (although I apologize for my utter inability to properly WP:STUBSORT). -- Kendrick7^talk 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What organisation? There was no organisation. The fraud consisted of her telling people she had an organisation. Nothing more. There was a facebook page: big deal. How is any of this notable? Taroaldo ✉ 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartly agree it is about the content. So, again, which content policy, per my list above, are you accusing this article of violating? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, as I have already said. Your 'list above' is incomplete... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round and round we go. The proper notability guideline is WP:ORG. Obviously, the vast majority of modern day organizations are made up of living people who are otherwise non-notable. That shouldn't automatically make articles about such organizations non-encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your Wikilawyering bullshit - the only sources cited refer to Kirilow - any mention of the 'charity' is made in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy--there appear to be two major reliable sources, & that makes enough of a claim of importance to pass speedy. If they are not adequate for one reason or other to meet the notability requirement, this needs to be a community decision to delete after full discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable attention seeker. It made the news because of how reprehensible the act was; nothing to do with the person or the specific act of fraud. Taroaldo ✉ 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the organization is both non-notable because it has sought attention, and yet notable for its reprehensible behavior? ~~Your second vote here~~ doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What second vote is that? You are beginning to make it difficult to keep assuming good faith when you start making ridiculous accusations. Taroaldo ✉ 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I miss read your pro-speedy delete comment as a pseudo vote. Stricken. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search for this organization and its bad behavior gets over 23 million hits on Google.[35] I know some are arguing that we should ignore WP:ORG, and that we can't have articles about poorly run organizations made up of otherwise non-notable and still living people, per WP:BLP1E. But we're an encyclopedia, and the proverbial cat is long since out of the bag. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the deal - I'll remove any references to Kirilow per WP:BLP1E, and you write the article about the 'organisation' based on sources that don't mention her - there must be a few amongst the 23 million that don't ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was around when WP:BLP1E became policy. Its original intent was for Wikipedia to not have articles about random internet users who, due to no fault of their own, became memes on 4chan or the like.[36] A noble if rather worthless goal thanks to that other wiki. I even think it's fine and reasonable not to create articles about one-off criminals of little notoriety. But with your interpretation, the slope has slipped quite enough for me. The policy wasn't created to protect organizations which have deliberately committed real-money fraud and are widely notable because of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of it The other part was to avoid detailed coverage of unrelated minor criminal incidents in the lives of people, except where the people (like political figures or well- publicized sports & entertainment figures) were such as that all aspects of their behavior were considered by the public as important, It was not meant to prevent the discussion of criminal behavior by people noted for being criminals. BLP of course does apply to articles about other things than people, as indeed it should, but among the things that it does rightly require is that when we do cover criminal behavior, we try to use a non-personal name for the article subject. Frauds can be notable, as I think this one is, and the name of the organization is a fair heading for the article that covers it. The individual responsible can be discussed also, as any other other criminal. BLP has to be used very careful to avoid becoming censorship of the unpleasant. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any evidence that 'an organisation' ever existed, other than in Kirilow's imagination? If so, please provide sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources suggest that it did. Please bring forth your sources that suggest that checks made out to Change for the Cure were cashed only in anyone's particular imagination. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read your own sources? The articles clearly make reference to her soliciting all payments in "cash and rolls of change". There were no cheques to be cashed and there was no organisation, except in her mind. There are "millions" of hits because a few stories were done by CP or TorStar and a bunch of other news outlets picked them up. Taroaldo ✉ 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WhatI was saying above, was they we could indeed cover it under her name, but that it is an appropriate use of discretion to use some other title,. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC) before a com[reply]

DGG, I'm really surprised you're falling for this bogus article. The Toronto Star article clearly spells out what she was doing. Look closer. Taroaldo ✉ 05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information - A fairly large userspace draft on Ashley Kirilow was written by Geo Swan in the 2010-2012 time frame. He turned it into a redirect to List of cancer victim hoaxes (which was deleted yesterday via this AFD) before moving it to Ashley Kirilow. here is the last draft before he gutted it. Ashley Kirilow now redirects to Change for the Cure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to a restored Ashley Kirilow, restored to the last "full" version as it existed when it was a userspace draft. Then clean up and reduce the size of the restored Ashley Kirilow page and make sure it is WP:BLP-compliant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. I think an argument can be made that the organization Ashley Kirilow set up, called "Change for the Cure" was notable, hers was not the only charity or bogus charity to use the phrase. Another organization that used it was the very successful Susan G. Komen charity, which distributed "Change for the Cure" jars for years. The article should cover all organizations that use the slogan. Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a single article that deals with "Change for the Cure" and "Ashley Kirilow". I agree with DGG that the article should be at Change for the Cure; Ashley Kirilow should be merged into and redirected to it. The primary topic should be the charity fraud. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ashley Kirilow. However, there's really no information in the article to merge apart from a couple references, so a merge here is, in effect, a delete. Marechal Ney (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about where to merge if we do merge. The primary notability for both the person and the organization is the criminal behavior. Our BLP policy is unambiguous that in ordinary circumstances when there is a choice of names we do not use the personal name of the criminal for the title, so if there is any basis for an article at all it belongs under the organization name. I am rather startled by some of the comments above that I am too credulous about accept the positive material here. I very much accept the negative material, and the way to cover it is under the present name. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 27 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ashley Kirilow article. I don't think this deserves status as a separate article. It was a figment of Kirilow's imagination and should remain as part of that article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:46, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles, making Ashley Kirilow re-direct to the charity. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashley Kirilow; this subject has neither the lasting effects nor the duration of coverage required by WP:EVENT. Miniapolis 14:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a quick search on Google and found nothing. The subject has only a mention in all the sources provided, and there seems to be no considerable third party coverage, except some passing mentions. Usmanwardag (talk) 04:46, 11 July 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. Sandstein 06:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey

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

The article title gives away a tone which in no way can be described as NPOV (solidarity is a rather colored word). Also the article only list supporting protests without any text talking about eventual rallies in support of the government _→AzaToth 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are many solidarity protests to 2013 protests in Turkey around the globe, most not even mentioned on the list such as the "tens of thousands" that protests in Cologne, Germany on 22 June. Also mind that 2013 protests in Turkey is already very long. I agree that the article has issues in its current form but it is a work in progress. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since you clarified your points, I will rephrase mine. :) I think one side is fairly well represented. Rallies by Erdogan quotedly are for local elections which is something we don't normally write articles about. The scope of this page is intended to include all notable protests outside of Turkey that support the 2013 protests in Turkey in an effort to reduce/limit the main articles size. As I said it is a WIP. I know it has many issues. I welcome others to contribute to it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, its on euronews too! -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
When I split this from 2013 protests in Turkey, I followed a standard model and called it International reactions to the 2013 protests in Turkey (and included the state and international organisation reactions). A Certain White Cat renamed it and moved the state/etc reactions back to the main article. I didn't agree with that, but not enough to argue with at the time. But going back to that original model might solve the problem. Podiaebba (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There have been no counter-protests. The gatherings of the AKP are early election rallies, not protests. Also, most Erdogan-supporters were shuttled to the gathering sites and were payed come. There is nothing about this that is of interest for this page. NeoRetro (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there exists one counter rally in Vienna (separate from the rallies you mentioned) which can very well be mentioned in the article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Valid content fork from main article. Dream Focus 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not the news, and the "article" is nothing but a list of events which have no encyclopedic relevance at all. What does it matter to anybody that a few dozen people protested in Copenhagen? Drmies (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a few hundred people on its own wouldn't matter but that many people around the globe at the same time does matter a lot. See Occupy Movement#Protests for instance. Also in some cities thousands or even tens of thousands have gathered. This is a break away from the main article so the alternative is inflating it back to a larger size. I think we want to avoid that. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. WP:FORK is irrelevant. WP:CFORK is a content guideline that only prohibits "Unacceptable types of" content forks: those that are "Redundant" or "POV fork[s]", those "created to be developed according to a particular point of view." This is both a "summary" and one of those "Articles whose subject is a POV", and thus is allowed. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. This is trivial news coverage that doesn't belong in its own article and doesn't belong in the article from which it was split. We're not forced to choose between putting it here and inflating the other article back to a larger size: we can choose to excise things of minor relevance entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's just sad. One of the things Wikipedia can do well is collect things like this, so you can quickly see at a glance that there were lots of small protests in lots of places - each of which is reliably sourced to a mass media source. A few of the protests are bigger, but most are small. That is useful and interesting in itself, and insisting on deleting the article serves no purpose but to either destroy information which probably doesn't exist anywhere else as such, or to inflating the main article, or to long and tedious arguments about what parts of the to-be-deleted article are allowed back into the main article. Also, it would be nice if people saying "delete" were to comment on my point above that the article was originally a standard-format International reactions to the 2013 protests in Turkey, before having state and international organization reactions taken out of it back into the main article and the sub-article renamed. Would going back to the original model solve the problem? Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 2 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable, verified WP:SPINOUT of the 2013 protests in Turkey article. Ordinarily I'd consider a merge, but the main article is at approximately 223 kilobytes, and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb should "Almost certainly should be divided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. The Turkey protests are notable; it doesn't follow that anything associated with them is therefore notable. This is just news; at best, it could be a sentence in the main article saying "there were some solidarity protests in some places," with numbers if that's thought relevant, but many of these protests are tiny. (Nearly 25 people protested in Jakarta!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the most important stuff to have on Wikipedia and I see one can argue it's a list of news stories, but this list includes more substantial stuff and is better defined than a lot of other lists that are kept on Wikipedia (and yes, I do compare). As for merge, I originally saw this list inside the main article, so I understand this is a spinout of an article that grew too large. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:07, 13 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil Peoples of the Indian Civil Service

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

This article purports to be a list of Tamil people in the Indian Civil Service. However, only seven people are listed here, and of those, only three of them currently have Wikipedia articles of their own. The only source provided mentions only one of the seven people on the list. No indication has been given that reliable sources consider Tamil members of the Indian Civil Service to be a distinctive topic. The list doesn't satisfy WP:LISTPEOPLE because (1) not all of the members are notable and (2) reliable sources have not been provided to establish that they are all Tamil people and members of the Indian Civil Service. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but no prejudice to recreation with reliable sources and blue linked individual articles. The Legend of Zorro 04:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of people by race/ethnic origin aren't usually considered encyclopedic topics, unless there's some particular reason for it to be important (e.g. in the context of segregation, genocide, severe oppression). There's no reason to have a breakdown of Indian Civil Service employees by ethnic group: even aside from the difficulty of deciding which group an individual belongs to or identifies with, it's no more relevant than a list of their heights. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a poorly sourced, POV fork of List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 15 July 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 deletion A7. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vikesh Agrawal

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

All I can find in google scholar is 4 articles, cited 4, 1, 1, and zero times. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Boucher (writer)

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

Author of a self-published book; the question is whether he is perhaps notable for the two radio plays. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really no notability here. For that matter, there isn't much notability for the film either- I'll probably nominate that for AfD or PROD it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. The article is fairly promotionally written- do you think it could be speedied that way? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on the fence about this subject. The BBC plays, and a short film directed by a (somewhat) notable director that won an award (albeit a fairly minor award)... certainly enough to escape speedy deletion. But not enough significant coverage to allow for any verifiable expansion of the article. To DGG, you should note that, gender-bending name to the contrary, Boucher is a woman. To Tokyogirl, I don't find the article blatantly promotional. (Well, at least not since I removed the bit about who her agent is.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence that she passes WP:WRITER: it's a minor award, and none of the works appear to have received substantial critical coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 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) czar · · 03:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Lukas

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

Kim Lukas is just not notable singer with independent sources. I knew about this singer because, after seeing the video for Blue by Eiffel 65, I was seeing what other music video Blisscomedia did. It turns out one of their works was for the video for "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas. So when looking at her wikipedia article, I decided to do some expanding to it, but when looking for independent sources about this artist, I was out of luck. Just because an artist had at least one song do well on the charts does not REALLY make her notable. It just suggests she may be, which this is not the case. EditorE (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she quite spectacularly passes the second criterium of WP:MUSICBIO, she has not just "had a single on any country's national music chart", she had two singles which were international hits through several European and Canadian charts. I would surely had considered deletion for someone who fulfill the criterium in a borderline way, but cases like these make me leaning towards a very sure keep. Cavarrone 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets the only two criteria that really make any sense when building an encyclopedia - (a) she (clearly) has sufficient significance and relevance, and (b) we can verify that from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 19:02, 9 July 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other (declared) deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Devil

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

Not notable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping. I didn't think a reliable review would be found. Hello KrebMarkt. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it not notable? It ran its course in Shonen Sunday for two years; while it lacks a proper English release, it has foreign publications from Singapore, France and Germany. Sources on this will be in Japanese. We shouldn't delete major works simply because they don't have an English release. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment notability isnt determined by status. But how many times its been noted, and right now only releases are shown. As much as I hate to say it, several shonen sunday manga rarely make it to be notable. Lets not forget these are known to us by scanlations more than anything. And usually dragonzero would nominate it without looking for the chance to expand it. Im on the verge of delete unless any new info (reception and development) can be found.Lucia Black (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to argue to keep things like this for years, but then found I could just transport the entire article elsewhere, so people could still read it, so it no longer mattered to me. Full history and picture transwikied to the manga wikia at manga.wikia.com/wiki/Defense_Devil Dream Focus 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sad For an old timer like me to join once more the fray :(

This series is licenced in France and Germany. It received coverage Issue #184 of the French Animeland magazine, shorts web reviews by Animeland : vol 1 vol 2 vol 3 vol 4 vol 5, French manganews website reviews : vol 1 vol 2, German AnimePro coverage. KrebMarkt (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources shows all three of those places on it, so that counts as coverage. I guess this article will be saved after all. Good work. Dream Focus 07:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may have not been covered a lot in English sources, but it has in other languages, and according to our guidelines any source of any language is acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:52, 11 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayward Forest Canoe Route

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

WP is not a travel guide book, as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If the canoe routes are notable on their own, a section on canoe travel should be added to Sayward Valley. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sayward Valley, or send it over to Wikivoyage. TheBlueCanoe 02:40, 29 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 1 July 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, L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 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. Not the most policy-based consensus, but the outcome is clear. Also nom is indeed blocked. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nawras Abu Saleh

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

This person only have a source to IMDB which is not that great of a reliable source, Plus, one role is not enough to be in Wikipedia. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 1 July 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, L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you google the name in Arabic, you find quite a lot of different media having interviewed him or covered news about his work. --Soman (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -weak article, and needs a lot of work. Does it fail notability? Not really. Quite a bit of foreign-language coverage. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:nominating editor has been blocked recently on account of being a sock. Just throwing it out there. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:25, 10 July 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. As this is the third time an article on this individual has been deleted, I'm pulling out the WP:SALT. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Taylor-Weber

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

Prodded for lack of reliable sourcing. Only sources are iTunes store and personal websites. After prod, the creator WP:REFBOMBed the article with references to other Wikipedia articles. I couldn't find any reliable sourcing; no hits at all on Gnews or Gbooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced what you couldn't find a reliable source too. Go look for yourself. and I deleted the other un-sourced material because it was undocumented on any sites. I got a lot of information from the real Randy Taylor Weber himself.I know him personally. Thank you [37]Elias.gatito Elias.gatito (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use word of mouth as a source. It has to be significant third-party coverage, like a review in a magazine or newspaper, a reputable website such as Allmusic, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I removed it and put a reliable source which was the billboard music chart page. Thank you for helping me understand more about Wiki and sources. Elias.gatito (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The billboard chart only verifies that the song he wrote had a peak position. It says nothing about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will do as much as i can to find information for him and source it. It's more difficult due to the fact that a lot of this information happened in the 1990s. In fact, I removed it all already and put up reliable information with reliable sources including reliable sources about him. I really do appreciate your help. It helps me learn more about wiki. Elias.gatito (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The info has verified sourced and will be edited more in time to have more sturdy sources. Elias.gatito (talk) 16:19, 30 June 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, L Faraone 04:35, 1 July 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, L Faraone 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing is written about this guy - I couldn't find a single reliable source. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if you look at the sources YOU WILL FIND INFO. THERE IS EVEN AN OFFICAL BILLBOARD SOURCE. THAT IS 100% RELIABLE.Elias.gatito (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable Billboard source says absolutely nothing about Taylor-Weber. Beerest355 Talk 23:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I could find no significant coverage about him in a search, and the "references" in the article are not independent. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable artist. Koala15 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Overkill

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

Game has not received substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Not even sure if it deserves its own section in Miniclip's article. Andrew³²⁷ 20:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; has no reliable sources.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 07:00, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Dixon

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

Not notable. One role, fails WP:ENT. Unsourced BLP. SummerPhD (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time. Gong show 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 July 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, L Faraone 02:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:37, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAGbook

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

An original version of this article was prodded in April 2013 after it was shown that the news sources it was based on were either primary-source interviews, or reprints of self-aggrandising press releases which the PR company later retracted. It came back last week using some of the same sources, and one new one: the 2013 textbook Using Social Media for Global Security, which mentions LAGbook in a list of social networking sites in Appendix A1, openly crediting Wikipedia's List of social networking websites article as its source for the list. Neither this nor its press releases confer any notability. McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has a long history of problems. Lagbook was deleted twice in February 2012 as unambiguous advertising. The article was recreated as LAGbook and had significant issues with sourcing. Particularly troubling was the company's tendency to make claims that were reprinted in the Nigerian media but were either grossly inflated or taken out of context or untrue. My favorite examples: the company claimed to have partnered with Dropbox when, if you read what they were claiming to have done carefully, it sounded like they had just plunked down $100 on Dropbox for Teams and called that a partnership. Similarly, the article claimed that Lagbook had been covered by TechCrunch, but when you read the TechCrunch article it was about a completely different company, GROUPS.PS, which makes a white-label social networking service and only briefly mentioned Lagbook as one of the users of that service. There were other WP:REDFLAGs, at the time I first CSD'd Lagbook, the company's logo was identical to Facebook's except that it was green instead of blue and used a lowercase l instead of a lowercase f. So I was not at all surprised when the creators of Lagbook put the website for sale and then the purchaser of Lagbook came forward and said that the founders were making false claims about the business and hijacking the purchaser's social media accounts. You can read the details at Talk:LAGbook. The sources that we have are primarily Nigerian media (The Vanguard and the National Mirror). Given that these sources have printed inaccurate claims from the Lagbook founders without doing any kind of independent research, I think they need to be discounted as unreliable. What that leaves us with is a website that sold for $10,000[38], ranked around 18,000 on Alexa at its best and is now defunct. I don't see any notability here but I am worried that the founders are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for dishonest self-promotion. GabrielF (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, i think you are letting personal feelings could your judgement.

first of all, you are the user who investigated to see is user:socialnerd was a sockpuppet of these "evil twins". your investigation cleared the user.

second, whatever the merits of the previous incarnations of this article (which i am unable to access or assess, not being an admin, the current article is a DE MINIMUS description of the website, which barely mentions the brothers at all.

& whatever the merits of the bio-article about the brothers, there is ample evidence in secondary sources (such as all the news articles that have been arbitrarily "disqualified") to justify an article about the site as an african internet company.

if the validity of the facts AS REPORTED IN THE NEWS MEDIA are in dispute, then by all means, let the opposing sources be included as well. but right now, all i see is a hysterical determination, mainly by the 2 users i have mentioned, to "extirpate" the article "at all costs", & facts, & wiki rules & policies be damned. Lx 121 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please follow WP:FOC

Sources that are not reliable shouldn't be used as references. Nor should we have articles on non-notable entities, especially when the articles appear to be a means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...& now you have "invoked" wp:foc in at least 3 or 4 different places. you can find my response on that point burther down in this discussion.

AS REGARDS SOURCES: you have arbitrarily & repeatedly disqualified numerous articles which were pubished in major african online "newspapers".

AS REGARDS NOTABILITY: disregarding all the content you have removed from the article previously, the website claims a userbase of ~1 million people, which, in terms of "home-grown" sub-saharan african social networking internet companies, makes them a decent-sized "indie" player. the claimed userbase size was reported in serveral of those african newspaper articles that you have "disqualified". you may disagree with the estimate, but that does not give you the right to "decide" those newspaper are invalid sources, & unless you can provide some equally credible source disputing the number, or offering an alternative number, then you are not in a good position to simply "disappear" the info. accurate or not, these stories ran in major news media outlets, & if you really want to "finesse" the point, then you are free to adjust the relevant text to say that "it was reported in ...etc.".

finally, as regards the "evil twins" that seem to be the driving motivation behind this dedicated attempt to remove any useful content from this particular article, THEY ARE BARELY MENTIONED. it's not a bio-article about them, it's not even a wp:promo for the company. the article (what's left of it, is a "de minimus" barebones description of the website, the type of service it provides/provided, & the namechange, as added my me (which, again, you ARBITRARILY REMOVED, because apparently the national mirror (nigerian "paper", the vangardngr (nigerian news media outlet), otekbits.com (internet/tech news), & techzulu.com (african tech/internet business news) are ALL COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE SOURCES for reporting basic facts about the existence of an african social networking website.

i really am gone now, back in 6-12-24 hours. 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claim about the checkuser is not accurate. I requested a checkuser for Socialnerd. He was not "cleared", the clerk denied the request to investigate. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidieberenwaogu/Archive.

More importantly, there is plenty of policy to support editors looking at cited sources in order to determine whether they are reliable. We do not need to accept as automatically reliable everything published in every newspaper around the world. You've opposed the removal of several articles. Two of them are simple interviews with almost no editorial contribution from the newspaper itself: [39][40]. In the National Mirror article published in December, the founders claim a valuation of $50,000 and that they would never sell the website, two months later they sold the website for $10,000. Two others articles are blogs. Finally, the Guardian Nigeria article claims that they "entered into partnership with Versamel Limited", the purchaser, who has verified his current control of the ___domain name, claims that the deal was a simple acquisition and that no such partnership exists. I agree with the assessment of another editor that the Guardian Nigeria article is a warmed-over press release. They tell the same origin story of the brothers founding the website to settle a bet over a girl's major and they quote the founders without doing any independent research. This isn't a case where a highly-reliable source says one thing but the article subject says another (a la the recent Philip Roth incident). We don't need to insist that the article subject provide their own secondary sources so that we can present both sides of the story because the sources that exist right now just don't stand up to scrutiny. GabrielF (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chidi_and_Chika_Nwaogu provides a good summary of the problems with previous versions of this and related articles, and the complete lack of sources both independent and reliable. Note that it's clear that some information in the press releases and statements to the press is fraudulent. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

& therefore you feel this justifies your "disqualifying" MAJOR african new media as sources for this article? based on your "gut feeling"? Lx 121 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, that arguement would have a lot more weight, if you hadn't spent so much time removing content from the article, arbitrarily dismissing valid sources, & abusing the good faith of another, much less-experienced user. Lx 121 (talk)

I've no idea what you're referring to, and think this is getting far off track of any useful discussion on this comment. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you have "no idea" of the ~1 dozen edits you made to the article, stripping out content & sources EVERY TIME.

you have "no idea" of the dozens of sources provided by user:socialnerd & by me, all of which you have arbitrarily rejected as "invalid".

you have "no idea" of how you rejected/blocked EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT by user:socialnerd to reach a compromise & edit constructively, & offered NOTHING in return.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'STRONG KEEP -- users McGeddon & Ronz have been on a "mission" to destroy this article; systematically stripping out information & references, as shown in the page history [41].

apparently this began as a dispute over a bio-article written by/about the founders of the site, which expanded to a dispute over the article about the site, & then became a dispute with user:Socialnerd, whom they accused of coi & suspected of being a sockpuppet; said user was CLEARED.

in the course of all this "action" a single-interest user:Shidan appeared in the conversation. this person made accusations against the brothers, which would be unacceotable on ANY blp article, & for which he did not provide adequate proof/sourcing.

talk page is here [42]

however the 2 above-mentioned users mcgeddon & ronz have apparently decided to accept this persons "original reasearch" @ face value, & the two have continued to undermine every attempt to improve the article, & effectively driven away user socialnerd.

the users have "disqualified" a LONG list of sources as "invalid", for spurious reasons. they have claimed that every article written about the company is based on "retracted press releases", without providing concrete evidence to support this assertion.

as a side-point, this article would also appear to have been "improperly" prodded, according to the rules disqualifying articles with any history of dispute from prod nominations.

below is a list of the "not reliable" sources

"not reliable sources"

http://techzulu.com/interview-with-founderslagbooks-social-network-for-meeting-new-people/

http://otekbits.com/2013/04/rip-lagbook-long-live-picrate-me/

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/

http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486

additionally, they have disqualified MANY other sources, on the talk page, out-of-hand.

text of (many of) the "invalid sources" mentioned on the talk page is c&p below

Material copied from article talk page discussions

_____________

12 Does this article actually contain independent and reliable sources?

Per the discussions above, lets look at the sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. It contains sources from Vanguard, The Guardian, National Mirror, Techcrunch. And all these are independent and reliable sources. I make sure that all I write is cited to a valid source, and I do not record anything that hasn't been reported from a neutral source outside LAGbook. The claims being made by the other party could be an aftermath of a little brawl between the partied involved. I am not here to solve personal problems but to document reported information. Writing on the talk page will not serve as evidence to work on but a creation of un-useful notice that will yield no significant result. I deploy the other party to report his claims on a reliable and independent source, and I will work with it just like as seen on Youtube's Wikipedia page:

"According to a story that has often been repeated in the media, Hurley and Chen developed the idea for YouTube during the early months of 2005, after they had experienced difficulty sharing videos that had been shot at a dinner party at Chen's apartment in San Francisco. Karim did not attend the party and denied that it had occurred, while Chen commented that the idea that YouTube was founded after a dinner party "was probably very strengthened by marketing ideas around creating a story that was very digestible"

A story was reported in the media about the birth of Youtube but one of the founders said it didn't happened and it may be a story just to market the idea and which the public will easily accept. If the new party documents his claims, it will be written here that he said this and this, and this and this didn't happen, and this and this is what happened.

So if it is written on a reliable source, it's along with Wikipedia's guideline to document it on this Wikipedia page,; good and bad, wikipedia is not a place to glorify anyone, but to report things as seen on reliable internet sources. Please, Shidan, share a link to a reliable source that documents your claims. Thanks. --Socialnerd (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) What it looks like to me is that these sources are all warmed-over press releases where no one actually investigated the claims in the press releases. If there is an exception, all we need to do is find it. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Here are articles independent and unculled from any pr:

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/ http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486 http://techzulu.com/interview-with-founderslagbooks-social-network-for-meeting-new-people/ http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/ http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html http://www.werunthings.net/in-conversations-onyeka-nwelue-to-chika-and-chidi-nwaogu/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/09/grou-ps-lets-you-create-your-own-private-facebook/ http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/vacancy/21564-lagbook-co-recruiting-in-9-positions

All these are articles from reliable sources like Vanguard, National Mirror, Techcrunch, Business Day to name a few. And they are not leaning on any pr. Please, I will deploy you to look closely here. This is a simple issue, if the other party feels what is reported widely and by multiple sources is false, he has to make a report that will be documented on a valid and reliable media portal about his claims so that it will be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for personal feelings or claims, but for documented and reported information.Socialnerd (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Let's look at them one by one: --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/05/unilag-twins-host-over-71000-users-on-lagbook/ - ADESILE, TOSIN (May 24, 2012). "UNILAG twins host over 71,000 users on Lagbook". Vanguard. The author is from the univerisity. It just looks like an annoucement with mostly quotes from the twins. I'd say that fits in the category of a press release. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC) That's an erroneous way to describe a press release. It could be a result from an interview section, and was reported in form of a story. This article was written by TOSIN ADESILE (a possible student writer/correspondent/reporter for the newspaper) and not part of the company. The first three paragraphs are words from the writer, while the last two are quotes, so I differ on the idea that it leans totally on words from the founders. Any article that doesn't have words from the person in question looks like something not to trust, and you know this. Articles I read on papers often like quoting the people in question for authenticity and credibility. --Socialnerd (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=114474:unilag-programmers-blaze-trail-in-social-networking&Itemid=486 - IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. Looks like a puff-piece, obviously based upon press releases given how it highlights partnerships. If the concerns discussed above are true, it's likely based upon fraudulent press releases. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I do not understand what you are driving at. It is not our job to say if a source is saying the truth or not, because we may end up making the wrong conclusions. Wikipedia is not a place for reporting or documenting personal opinions and research, or making personal assumptions/opinions/findings influence the way things are being documented. It is a neutral point of view system, and this doesn't look neutral if our own feelings/manner of understanding are put into play.--Socialnerd (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It is our job to determine if the sources we use are reliable or not, if they are independent or not, or otherwise meet relevant policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://techzulu.com/interview-with-founderslagbooks-social-network-for-meeting-new-people/ - Wakoba, Sam (September 4, 2012). "Africa’s Largest and Fastest Growing Social Network : Interview with LAGbook’s Chidi Nwaogu". TechZulu. An interview. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Citing an interview is not against wikipedia's policy/guidelines for citing sources. Or is it? --Socialnerd (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It's not an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/let-your-dreams-run-wild-nwaogu-twins/ - Gotevbe, Victor (Sep 01, 2012). "Let your dreams run wild – Nwaogu twins". Vanguard. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://nationalmirroronline.net/index.php/young-and-next-generation/45116.html - OFOELUE, ONUKWUBE (Jul 12, 2012). "We sold our laptops to build LAGbook –Twins". National Mirror. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.werunthings.net/in-conversations-onyeka-nwelue-to-chika-and-chidi-nwaogu/ - "In Conversations: Onyeka Nwelue talks to Chika and Chidi Nwaogu". WeRunThings. Retrieved 2013-02-13. An interview --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/09/grou-ps-lets-you-create-your-own-private-facebook/ - PEREZ, SARAH (August 9, 2011). "GROU.PS Lets You Create Your Own Private Facebook". TechCrunch. Briefly mentions LAGbook. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/vacancy/21564-lagbook-co-recruiting-in-9-positions - JOBS, BUSINESS (May 17, 2011). "Lagbook Co. Recruiting in 9 Positions". Business Day. An advertisement. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We can continue to go through the references one by one, but I'm thinking it a waste of time at this point and we should consider both articles for deletion. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

13 References based upon removed press releases

Starting a list of references based upon retracted press releases. Anyone object to them being immediately removed along with the corresponding content? --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nigeria’s LAGbook Reaches One Million Registered Members & Launches ‘Social Apps’". TechMoran. March 28, 2013. "Ghana Makes Up Top Ten Registered Users on LAGbook as LAGbook Launches 'Social Apps'". Cranchon. March 29, 2013. "LAGbook Partners With Nintag". IQ4News. March 17, 2013. "LAGbook Partners With Nintag To Improve Search Results". TechMoran. March 15, 2013. "Approaching the 1miilion mark, LAGbook Partners With Nintag To Improve Search Results". Cranchon. March 16, 2013.

I've gone ahead and removed them along with any info entirely dependent upon them. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing these are as well. Anyone want to verify? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. "LAGbook Raises $10,000 In First Round For African Expansion". TechMoran. February 7, 2013. Text " To Launch Jamaa.com & Befondit.com " ignored (help) "LAGbook Joins UK Company Versamel Limited, Receives $10,000 Angel Investment". Cranchon. February 19, 2013. Yusuf, Adewale (January 22, 2013). "LAGbook Organizes One-Month Coding Marathon To Fix Privacy Concerns". OTEKBITS. IBEMERE, DAVID (February 24, 2013). "UNILAG Programmers Blaze Trail In Social Networking". The Guardian. Ayemoba, Andrea (January 21, 2013). "Prominent African Social Network Increases User Privacy By Over 80%". Africa Business Communities. Yusuf, Adewale (February 5, 2012). "LAGbook Set To Launch Social Platform For Blogs". OTEKBITS. "Jamaa and Befondit To Be Launched by Africa's Largest Social Networking PLatform". Cranchon. February 19, 2013.

'oppose, what proof do you have that any (much less all) of these are "retracted press releases"? i haven't seen you provide ANYTHING. Lx 121 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

end of c&p

this matter has gotten completely out of hand, these users have abused the good faith of other editors, disregarded the rules for sources, & basically "run amok" to dismantle & eliminate the article, & apparently they feel completely justified in doing so.

i'm considering whether to make out a user report but at the moment i've had enough of this "drama" & am going to do some useful work elsewhere

Lx 121 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC.

User:Shidan verified his relationship with the company that purchased LAGbook.

There were multiple concerns with the sources before Shidan joined the discussion.

Much of the information in the LAGbook press releases and public statements are inconsistent and contradictory.

Some of the information in the LAGbook press releases and public statements is grandiose to the point of being inaccurate, and some outright fraudulent.

The press releases were still available for inspection last I looked. Are they gone?

I fail to see any evidence offered that there exist sources both independent and reliable on the topic, much less that meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

again, for the upteenth time WHAT "EVIDENCE"!? i see user:sheridan on the lagbook talk page, i see him making lots of claims & accusations. i don't see any "evidence" that would be considered valid in an article, & i don't see any "evidence" that "prooves" his side of the story as regards anything relevant to the article-contents.

but, apparently, you regard this single-interest user as "more reliable", than half a dozen articles in major african "newspapers"?

i'm going to stop now, because i am so unhappy with how you & your friend have acted in your mistreatment of user:socialnerd & your arbitrary removal of perfectly valid media sources from the article. i shall return to this conversation, but after i've done something more constructive for a while. Lx 121 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is page to discuss the the deletion of LAGbook. I've tried to summarize the consensus from the talk page and other relevant discussions. What I'm not seeing here are any policy-based arguments supporting a "strong keep" viewpoint, nor opposition to the past consensus. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your "consensus" amounted to you & user mcgeddon shutting down every attempt by user:socialnerd to edit constructively. much ranting by user:shidan, & a failed sockpuppet accusation against user:socialnerd.

if there was any previous deletion discussion for this article, it should be noted/included/accessible on the page here, but i don't see it?

Lx 121 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for keeping the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at those sources:

The techzulu.com article is an interview: this makes it a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and it looks like it might be a self-published group blog.
The otekbits.com article is a company blog entry that quotes and paraphrases a LAGbook blog entry by Chidi Nwaogu: this fails WP:SPS as a non-expert blog, and reheated press releases are not reliable sources.
The Vanguard NGR "UNILAG twins host over 71,000 users on Lagbook" article: this may be reliable, but is only five paragraphs.
The Vanguard NGR "Let your dreams run wild" article: this is another interview.
The National Mirror Online article: this is another interview.
The NGR Guardian News article: this paraphrases a February 2012 press release.

WP:WEBCRIT requires a site to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", excluding "media re-prints of press releases" and "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content". On these sources plus the copied-from-Wikipedia textbook appendix, the website does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

The retracted press releases are a concern (for what it's worth, the best evidence available to us is simply that press releases mentioned in last year's discussions have since been deleted for whatever reason), but a retracted press release is no better or worse than a fresh press release for sourcing purposes - Wikipedia should use neither. A press release being retracted is problematic for making it harder to check whether a given source was based on it, but I don't think we're rejecting any sources purely on the grounds that they might be based on a retracted press release. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So only the Vanguard UNILAG twins article is worth considering. I agree that it doesn't demonstrate notability. Details on this afd's talk. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. There are no reliable sources that are removed from the public relations campaigns for the site. The press and other information directly from LAGbook is not reliable, sometimes to the point of being outright fraudulent. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 8 July 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, L Faraone 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the rather vehement defense, there seems to be no policy-based reason to keep this somewhat promotional article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:28, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Alfredo Ojeda

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

Seems to fails WP:BIO. Very minor politician. He is in charge of subarea 112 in South Florida. Several third party references but where is the notability. scope_creep 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Hairhorn (talk) 18:00, 4 July 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, L Faraone 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability but I added two categories to the article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 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.

Daniel Alfredo Ojeda is a very influential personality in Miami. He serves the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.87.218 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by User:Phantomsteve as G3 - blatant hoax--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Awakening (film)

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

Short, unsourced article about a non-notable upcoming film. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFILM. May be a hoax. - Mr X 20:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON for the article to be considered at this time. See WP:NFF. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 July 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, L Faraone 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This looks to be a hoax, as there's nothing out there that confirms that a film by this name is going to be made starring these actors. A search for the title with any of the names brings up nothing either, which is highly suspicious when you consider the huge names linked to it such as Bateman. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's a hoax. The same actor added a film section to The Red Pyramid, saying that he was going to be starring in the film adaptation. I've nuked the section and blocked the user for 48 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 9 July 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 Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). --BDD (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Humphreys (economist)

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

fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. yes he founded a political party but it is a very minor party, the best the party has done has had one candidate elected to local government. he doesn't meet WP:POLITICAN though. "political activist" what does that mean? and he was removed as a candidate for Liberal National Party so gets coverage for that. he doesn't meet any notability for being an economist (his economics achievements are unremarkable) either so the article name is a bit misleading. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major issues w/ independent coverage, the one source which covers his removal by the national party indicates that he's unlikely to meet notability as a politician soon, & the fact that he's still a PhD student indicates he wont make academic notability for awhile either.Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ – Located some independent coverage: Australian, ABC?, Sydney Morning Herald. A little surprised not to find more. groupuscule (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not indepth coverage:

- The Australian this is just a 2 line mention quoting an opinion by him
- ABC story this article is merely talking as a representative of his party, and is not coverage about him
- Sydney Morning Herald merely commenting in media about party position, not coverage about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant figure in libertarian politics in Australia, LNP political candidacy was a minor aspect. This bizarre habit of a couple of users of nominating anyone who's ever run for and lost an election in Australia for deletion needs to end. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having run for and lost election anywhere in the world almost never makes people notable. See WP:POLITICIAN. --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree totally with Randykitty, there is no notability guideline which grants automatic notability for unsuccessful candidates. for every 1 successful candidate in any election there are at least 5-10 unsuccessful candidates. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant figure in libertarian politics in Australia" is not a criterion for notability. there are a few media comments but very little coverage on him as a person, ie his career, education, achievements (besides founding a very minor party). LibStar (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the reasonable solution to Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). no reason given why the redirect would not be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most reasonable course of action at this point. We can respawn Humphreys if he becomes independently notable someday. groupuscule (talk) 15:53, 9 July 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, L Faraone 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Redirect per DGG is also acceptable, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. Party leader. Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 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. WP:CSD#G3. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olimar The Wondercat

This article is completely bogus and fictional, even though it has somehow survived for seven years. All references are either to mirror sites or to other sites constructing this lavish hoax. There are no references to it on (e.g.) the Times Digital Archive, which normally produces many references to programmes of this alleged vintage via its TV listings. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 9. Snotbot t • c » 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I've tagged the article as a hoax. It's pretty blatantly a hoax and the sole source on the page doesn't have any records of this show. There's nothing out there to show that this has ever existed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 9 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Stern

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

Like most The O.C. character articles, there's no evidence of out-of-universe notability here. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:56, 25 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 2 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 9 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Cooper

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

Like most The O.C. character articles, there's no evidence of out-of-universe notability here. Beerest355 Talk 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:57, 25 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 2 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 9 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Cohen

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

No out-of-universe notability. Beerest355 Talk 20:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:54, 25 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 2 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 9 July 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. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Silver

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

Non-notable person. Beerest355 Talk 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 25 June 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 2 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no real claim of notability, except through 'inheritance'. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That is an interesting claim of "inheritance" above... Hmmm. Actually, this is a professional golf caddy, so there is indeed a plausible claim to notability to be made. The footnotes list a Golf Digest article "about" the subject, but the link is now 404-ed and a search of the Golf Digest archive isn't turning up anything obvious for me. A Google search is also not pointing me towards anything that will get us over GNG. Looks like a GNG fail, not being the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 9 July 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 History of video games. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Console wars

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

I feel an article about this topic cannot be appropriately maintained or sourced and that it doesn't fit the criteria for standalone notability as a concept; relevant content can and should be merged out to the "History of video games (Xth generation)" articles. All the notability is for invidual console wars in a same generation, not for the "concept" of console wars itself, without mentioning specific consoles. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about the competition. If people wanted sales comparisons, they can just look on the console pages. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely redundant to the video game generation articles, and manages to be even more based off of WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability has been established and there is original research everywhere. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of video games. I'm sure I can dig up WP:RSes on the topic, but per WP:TNT let's get rid of the current article but keep the content available (I might make this one of my projects to fix once I get the motivation to get past my impatience and actually start doing article work). A valid search term, as well. Ansh666 07:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands this is a delete. There are parts of it that can be used in other articles and used as a bare bones starting point for new ones. I've taken a copy of the article as it stands now, as I can make use of parts of it. The copy is here (User:X201/Console wars) if anyone wants it. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of video games or another video game-related topic article. I'm sure this term has been mentioned in several reliable sources, but I don't think it's a notable enough term to have an article on it on Wikipedia. EditorE (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I'll agree it is a good redirect to History of video games; @X201: has copied the article in his userspace so if this ends in consensus for redirection, I'd recommend histmerging the history to X201's draft and recreating this title as a redirect, in order to preserve attribution of edits. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia generally doesn't keep "general concept" articles like this for a number of reasons, and this article is particularly bad about WP:OR, as well as not pertaining to a specific event. It would require constant maintenance over time. IMO, there are a few specific notable events, particularly the 16-bit advertising war in North America between Nintendo and Sega, but those events can be properly covered in their respective console/company articles and/or the History article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite: Surely this is quite a notable concept? If the content isn't that great, the article can be rewritten. When I say "rewrite", I mean that instead of having the article act as a timeline of game consoles (essentially a content fork of History of video games) like it currently is, the article should be more focused on the competitive marketing and development strategies between the various companies. I'm talking about things like company partnerships (e.g. Nintendo's partnership with Phillips, and how Sega Japan refused to use a chipset created by Silicon Graphics), promotional advertising campaigns and slogans ("Sega does what Nintendon't"), controversial stunts pulled off at major conferences and events such as E3 and TGS, essentially the more corporate aspect of the video game industry. There are many great articles written about the competitions between each console manufacturer that explore the topic in great detail, such as this one. I think that currently the article at Console wars is going off the wrong bend, and should be remade afresh. Delete all the text, and start from square one again. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of video games. I applaud the above user's thought that perhaps WP:TNT could be applied here, but I don't see it as a valid content fork of the History of video games article simply because I think talking about the concept can best be handled in that article or the sub-articles of it, i.e., 4th generation, 5th generation, etc. Surely competition is one of the most notable aspects of each subsequent generation, I am sure, and could best be applied to the history articles. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:18, 16 July 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.