Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 September	17 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Bruno

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

Jennie Bruno does not seem to pass the notability requirements for an actress. She was in one film with a minor role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no indication there was any other role than the one listed in the article. A single minor role as a landlady in one film does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: IMDB lists the one role, as do some other reference books, but nothing else is verifiable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 23 September 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 Karate Kid (2010 film). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wenwen Han

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

Completing the nomination process for an unregistered user who gave the following reason for deletion: "This individual has only one supporting acting role, thus failing WP:NACTOR, which states an actor has to had "significant roles in multiple well-known films and shows." She also does not seem very notable as a dancer or violinist as she has not competed in any well-known competitions or shows, fails WP:NBAND too. The references and external links do not provide any indication of notability at all. Having accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube do not equal notability." [1] The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am not sure if I am allowed to vote in this AfD since I am completing it even though I did not start it, but I would say delete being that I cannot find enough coverage of as an actor (except those that are more focused on The Karate Kid, her sole acting role), musician, or dancer, to merit notability. Searching her name on Google only comes up with her social media sites, movie review sites that have pages on every single actor in the world, or other people who have the same or similar names. If I can't vote in this AfD, then just don't count my vote in the final tally when closing the debate, but do take my rationale into consideration when you vote. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie, reasonable search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Karate Kid (2010 film), as this is a plausible search term. — sparklism ^hey! 07:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the film article, kinda like how Taylor Dooley redirects to the one film she was in. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to film article. The article is relatively well-sourced. If the actress becomes more notable in the future (which is quite possible), the content can then be easily reused. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Karate Kid (2010 film). Same argument with User:Zanhe; this can possibly develop more notability, but right now it is better off redirecting to the one film she has been in. Koopatrev (talk) 11:59, 20 September 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 Mazinger characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Borot

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mazinger Z through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mazinger characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why don't redirect all these articles by yourself to proper lists/parent articles instead of starting dozens of identical AfDs with obvious outcomes?? However, Redirect to List of Mazinger characters. Cavarrone 05:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per last AfD result: "The result was redirect to List of Mazinger characters. Any needed information can be merged from the article history — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)" Why are we even debating this AfD if the last result was a redirect? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this previous AfD? I can find no evidence of such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 20 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Costey

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

Unsourced, massive coat rack The Banner talk 22:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never heard of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozle102 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He's got articles about him in Electronic Musician[2] and Sound on Sound[3][4]. And Jane's Addiction thought enough of him to announce that they had hired him; Alternative Press called him a "producer and engineer extraordinaire".[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is way too detailed, and thus promotional, but he has significant coverage, as stated by Clarityfiend. Trimming back to only links where he is mentioned (and referenced) wouldhelp.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has received enough coverage, per reasons stated by Clarityfiend. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, by now is is a sourced promo-article with a source for almost every cough. Does staff really need a discography? The Banner talk 01:02, 21 September 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) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Jofre

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable manager, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG as has not managed in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- He is managing a club in the top league of the Phillipines. I suspect that Soccer is not a major sport there. However, this is a minor stub, for a man now aged 53 and described as a retired player. Who did he play for when an active player? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find anything to indicate that he was actually a player. If he was then it almost certainly would have been at a WP:NFOOTY-failing level. Some v brief mentions on the BBC website about him taking over at Manilla Nomads having been a youth coach at Motherwell, but nothing that could be described as even approaching substantial. Should be treated in the same way a player would who has not played internationally or in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:40, 17 September 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) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Hasegawa

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Players fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league. No indication of any other achievements within the game to allow a WP:GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 17 September 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) 00:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oskari Lehtonen

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Zoozle102 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Players fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, Player has only played in lower leagues in Finland and the top league in Estonia, neither of which are fully professional, nor is the Phillipines league currently. No indication of any other achievements within the game to allow a WP:GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication this article satisfies any of our notability guidelines - it's about a non-notable footballer. Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 17 September 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) 00:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Kama

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. The article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Players fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league. No indication of any other achievements within the game to allow a WP:GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 17 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bott

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful mayoral candidate who has received little or no coverage outside of routine campaign press, per Google News search. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although he seems like an awesome guy and a great leader in his community. Green Party candidate for mayor of Syracuse doesn't cut it unless someone uncovers very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP How can Bott be an "Unsuccessful mayoral candidate" when the election has not even happened yet? It sounds like editors are not actually reading the information on the page. There is now no Republican running in this mayoral race against the incumbent Democrat who has record low numbers already in polls -- that will be a first in this city, that I'm aware of, that a Democrat Mayor will have a Green as her primary contender. This situtaion will automatically put Bott in the spotlight. At the least if the page is removed it should be done after the race is over in November. His race has been covered by the local newspaper numerous times, the public radio station, the local tv station, etc., check the references. It would seem . . . unusual that wikipedia would remove the page of the one contender to an incumbent mayor in the middle of the campaign.GreenIn2010 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have your logic back-to-front in your first sentence. If the election hasn't happened yet then Bott can't possibly have been a successful candidate, therefore, unless and until he is elected, he is an unsuccessful candidate. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for voters in a forthcoming election, so there is no requirement for fairness or reason to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy against this candidate or his party. This situation is far from unusual, with articles about such candidates of any or no party being deleted frequently. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which news coverage in a political campaign is determined to be "routine campaign press" Additionally, not every political race is posted on wikipedia, only the ones that someone decides is worth creating. In this case a unique race has developed between a highly charismatic candidate from a third party and an incumbent Democrat who has very low ratings amongst her own constituents. The campaign is being covered in the local news increasingly because the race is shaping up to be unique in the City's recent history. Races where only one of the major parties has a candidate running are typically newsworthy in part because of the issues the alternative party candidate brings to the race, normally not examined, as well as unexpected events which occur, such as arrests and other situations where the alternative candidates seek a means to gain the press coverage routinely afforded to major parties. GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the candidate is getting a surprising amount coverage from the area already. If the page needs to be deleted, it can wait until the race is over. Because if the race turns interesting it would have been better to just leave it. I say let this unfold rather than rush to delete when the situation is in progress.PhotoactivistSV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINTATION WITHDRAWN: While acknowledging my blunder is using the word "unsuccessful" about a candidate in an election that has not yet taken place, I'm not still not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. However, given the increasing amount of press coverage he is receiving, and the clear potential for more to come given the unique circumstances of the race (per comments of GreenIn2010), I have to decided to withdraw the nomination for the time being. Will re-assess and decide whether or not to re-nominate after the election is over.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. GreenIn2010 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when does the AfD tag leave the page now that the nomination has been withdrawn? GreenIn2010 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow the discussion to run its course. There are arugments in support of deletion. If there is coverage of the election, then perhaps an article on the election would be warranted. Also, some of the keep arguments here seem to be coming from involved or at least interested parties. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 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 Washington United States Senate election, 2006. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Guthrie (politician)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful candidate for office who received only routine campaign press, per Google News search. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he's notable as an athlete or coach. Running for multiple political offices does not show notability, especially when he's never been a major party candidate or come close to getting elected.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess, or Redirect to Washington United States Senate election, 2006. There is this article, which is a big article dealing extensively with the subject, in a a major paper. But that's about it, it looks like, and that's not enough. Third-party candidate getting a few percent of the vote and not meeting WP:BIO or WP:CAE (which is just an essay); not notable enough to include in the historical record. Herostratus (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 18:43, 22 September 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 sales presentation. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch deck

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

Not notable, seems to be promoting a neologism. Found no reasonable sourcing, just vague uses of the term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to find a couple of examples of fairly specific uses of the term like this and this. The article, though, is pretty badly written and a bit confused. There are plenty of mentions if you click the "books" find sources link above but not much by way of significant coverage. Lots of "how to" type stuff like this. Just not sure if it's enough to warrant an article. I'm probably just seeing the stuff nom found. Stalwart111 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 10 September 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sales presentation, of which this is a transparent content fork. Both articles are in execrable condition, but "sales presentation" (sales pitch also redirects there) is the more general term, so we ought to keep all this pointed at one place in the hopes of eventually getting a decent article out of it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 16 September 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) 00:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Jihad

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

WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before I noticed the AfD I'd already come to the conclusion that this is an example of "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term was created by Robert Spencer in the pages of FrontPage Magazine in 2004. It has very little currency outside of that publication -- although admittedly not quite zero. This Guardian article uses the term, and it appears in this book, both with some explanation. Most other uses of the term are derivative of Spencer's original article, either in the same publication, or else actually written by him. Several prominent Google Books hits are self-published/print-on-demand sources and are not reliable ([6][7]). The Gatestone Institute article used as a source currently is the most trivial of mentions, using the term solely in the title. And I'm dubious of the reliability of the HRDI source; it's actually republished from a site whose submissions policy is not suggestive of a reliable source. All told, I just don't think there's enough use of the term, much less coverage of the term, to warrant an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Term claims to describe a variety of sexually exploitative behaviors perpetrated by Muslim men, but the references listed don't seem to agree on a common definition. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 00:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the terms origin it seems to be used by diverse publications. One would prefer an in depth article on the topic but there's a minimum to support the article at this time. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire topic is simply a neologism one author is trying to create buzz for. Even the article itself simply revolves around Spencer's use of the term, and a handful of sources not written by him but merely explaining the term he invented still couldn't serve the purpose of creating an independent article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:NEO]....William 10:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable WP:NEO. Mar4d (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty straight WP:NEO fail. This neologism just doesn't have the sort of widespread usage to justify an article. If we were to assume that all usages of the term here: [8] actually refer to the neo (a big assumption). That's only 441 usages of the term, I wouldn't touch most of these sources with a barge poll and I can't spot any which give a detailed discussion of the Neo, so "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia" applies here. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per [[WP:NEO]. Political sources like FrontPageMag is not a reliable source. The 4th source from a wordpress blog is extremely reliable.--Benfold (talk) 12:09, 22 September 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 Jar. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glass jar

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

Is it possible that we should have an article on an item as mundane as a glass jar? Possibly. Is this that article? No it appears to have been created for one user's own amusement as a tongue-and-cheek comment on their appreciation of the fact that we have an entire Wikiproject devoted to containers. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless fork - we already have Jar, along with Container glass... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is already a much funnier commentary on the importance of glass jars out there as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I will respond to User:Beeblebrox's remarks on my editing habits on my talk page, but the suggestion that this article is somehow a comment on the Containers wikiproject would be impossible unless I somehow had access to a time machine, as the article predates the project, and also follows my earlier articles on items such as a Jar opener - it was at this stage that I was surprised there was not already an article on glass jars - something which I decided to fix. I must say I was unaware of the existing articles on Jar and Container glass, and although I believe this article contains information that is not available in those articles and offers a more in depth look at a specific aspect of glass-based storage, if the consensus here is to merge I will not oppose, but I would suggest that the content of this article be moved entirely to whatever ___location is deemed most suitable. Thanks, Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I take no part in either side of this deletion discussion because I am undecided. While I agree that it can appear pointless, it is probable that an article on a glass jar could be necessary, and deleting it now may make it more difficult to recreate with a sincere article later. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jar. There is already an article on Jars in general (mainly glass) and particular types of glass jars. Jar (disambiguation) is a perfectly adequate page to gather together these various jar articles. Glass jar is a superfluous duplicate. Sionk (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jar. Or delete. Either is acceptable. I don't know whether it's a postmodern prank or a good-faith creation, but there's no reason for this duplicate article to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jar. Or delete. Feeble fork. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Is the "Containers" project definitely genuine? I mean, that's not a hoax or piss-take too is it? Note that the "userbox" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Containers) depicts a "Crusty old bucket with a troll stood next to it". 86.176.211.59 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The troll makes it difficult not to read that as a satire of Wikipedia's anal-retentive obsession with minor details and trivial subjects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that project is intended as a put-on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge. There's information not already in the jar article. Peter James (talk) 22:34, 18 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inootrumangalam

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

There is no explicit claim of notability, and it is a tiny village, so there is no automatic claim notability either. Benboy00 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named places and settlements are generally considered presumptively notable. A community of 400 people is far from the smallest settlement with Wikipedia coverage. Tamil-language sources almost certainly exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If sources, Tamil or not, are added, I will rescind my suggestion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now sourced with administrative info. I haven't been able to find a population source though. —SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :/ I'm not sure that those sources are enough for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28geographic_features%29#Geographic_regions.2C_areas_and_places . Can anyone find some evidence of governmental recognition? (census would be great). Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand Indian local government well, so permit me to bring in an analogy from the USA. In the USA, the second line in the section Benboy quotes applies to neighborhoods and other subdivisions of clearly notable places (we don't automatically keep an article about a city neighborhood, especially if it's small and undefined), while the first line in the section includes unincorporated communities in civil townships, such as small villages without their own governments and without separate recognition in the census. If I understand the article correctly, Inootrumangalam's situation is much more like the unincorporated community in the civil township, and Google Maps seems to agree: it's a small populated place in the middle of what's either forests or open fields, not a part of a larger city, while Karur district appears to be analogous to a civil township or a county. Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem I have with this is that the only source we have for this places ___location is the author of this article, Dsvvimal, who's only edits have been to this article. Searching on google maps finds Arunoottimangalam, which seems quite different from Inootrumangalam. Are they the same place? In that case, should this article be named Arunoottimangalam? The sources seem to mention Inootrumangalam (although I don't speak Tamil, I used google translate), but dont really provide information on exactly where it is. I would just really like some census data, and maybe the thoughts of a user who speaks Tamil. SpacemanSpiff, do you speak Tamil? If so, can you tell us what these articles actually say? I dont mean a full translation, but any relevant facts that they contain? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to his userpage, Tamil is SpacemanSpiff's cradlespeech, and he's also able to use Hindi, Spanish, and French, although we have the oddity that his userboxes doesn't mention any familiarity with English :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification Nyttend, I do occasionally dabble in English too, perhaps I should update my userboxes! As far as the refs go, the two verify the statements that I've added them against. The first ref is a passing mention that verifies the statement, the second is about Ration card#India corrections in the administrative division (Panchayat) and verifies both the first and the second statements in the article. —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 19 September 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) 06:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Huff

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

Non-notable actor and filmmaker. IMDB is not appropriate as the sole reference to his acting/filmmaking (it also doesnt even mention awards). This article is clearly promotional, and contains lots of unsourced and poorly sourced information. Also seems to be an autobiography. Benboy00 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overly promotional, not sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:FILMMAKER at this time. Gong show 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beck (schoolmaster)

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

Beck's notability appears simply to have been inherited from his proximity to Charles, Prince of Wales rather than any particular notability of his own. On that basis I submit that he is not, himself, notable, despite an obit in The Times, again derived from his proximity to UK royalty. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I believe Beck meets the crunch General notability guideline in that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Others can review them to see whether they agree. Beck was indeed close to the Prince of Wales, but that alone does not prevent him from being notable. Indeed, as only one of the reliable sources provided so far is more about the Prince than about Beck, the "notability inherited from proximity" argument strikes me as a little thin. (I was planning to nominate the page at DYK but will wait a few days for the outcome of this afd.) Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cheam is a very famous UK Public School, and its headmasters are probably notable , quite apart from the connection of this one with royalty. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have it misplaced. It is not UK Public School, it is for the prior age group, up to 13 years old, and is a preparatory school, a class of school about which we do not even have that weird 'automatic notability afforded to it because it is a school'. Public Schools are rather different and tend to be famous. Preparatory Schools tend not to be. This one is simply reasonably old, and was chosen by the UK royals for Charles because his dad had been there and they were experimenting. Fiddle Faddle 08:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- apart from the claims of the Moonraker for GNG and DGG's citation of Cheam as an important UK school, consider the aim of WP:N for a moment -- it is not to have a standard of famousness or quality of people to be worthy of Wikipedia, it is to ensure that the articles we have can be supported by well-documented and reputable sources. The extensive documentation of the life of this person that Moonraker has uncovered leads me to believe that we can in fact maintain a high quality and well-documented article on the subject. I further believe that a non-paid obituary in a major newspaper is sufficient for GNG regardless of whether at the time the notability was inherited or not; Does Wellington not get an article because his only major accomplishment was defeating Napolean and thus has inherited notability? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cheam is clearly a Prep School, not a Public School, but the subjects involvement in the education of the Prince of Wales clearly makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obituary in The Times is sufficient to confirm notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC) PS as Mscuthbert (talk · contribs) rightly says, WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and seems to be based on a bizarre naive idealism that subject should only be included if they are "worthy" enough to "deserve" their article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:10, 18 September 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 (A7/G11) by Deb. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Value Storage

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

Not enough sources, badly formatted. borderline A7 Kadzi (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted this - not only does it not make any claim of notability, but it's blatant advertising. Deb (talk) 17:23, 16 September 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 Decepticons. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Menasor

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stunticon or List of Decepticons. This excessively detailed history and in-universe writing about non-notable fictional characters is more applicable to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 17 September 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 Multiverse (Marvel_Comics)#Known alternate universes. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-717

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

This does not establish notability independent of What If (comics) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multiverse (Marvel_Comics)#Known alternate universes where all the rest of these are listed. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multiverse (Marvel_Comics)#Known alternate universes. This is not independently notable and is adequately described in the parent article. Extended, in-universe coverage belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 17 September 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) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young People Matter

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

This was very recently nominated for deletion, but the nom. withdrew it. I don;t see why. The organization is a very small local charity. The only independent ref. which is not PR, is from a local newspaper , South London Press, and one local newspaper article is not notability . I can't find anything else except uses of the term in other contexts. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search is complicated by the common phrase, but I believe there isn't much to pass WP:NGO. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as previous nominator I was seduced by my inner desire for this to be notable. With hindsight I probably mistook a local paper reference for better referencing and withdrew the nomination based upon that. I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- I can find nothing about it, except their own website and one local newspaper report. My search also brought up references to an unrelated report with this name by the Evangelical Alliance. My conclusion is that this is a local youth and children's club; possibly notable locally, but not WP-notable. One sentence (with an external link) might be added to an article on the locality, presumably Stockwell. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was prematurely nominated for deletion on creation, however more references have been added since then and various content rewritten to reflect a more neutral point of view. With 5 years of operation, I believe a wiki article is needed to increase awareness for the charity. This page would obviously be updated as time goes by.

Also minor edits have been made to address the neutrality issue and therefore this wiki page should be kept. Xplus23 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Item misplaced on article talk page by @Xplus23: and copied here verbatim except for formatting. Fiddle Faddle[reply]

No new sources have been added since AfD was initiated. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine, though have not checked, that this refers to the withdrawn nomination, not this current one? Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 18 September 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 Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seagoras

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect to Ultra Monsters is also acceptable. Due to a lack of reliable sources and notability, the article consists entirely of in-universe history and trivia, and it will probably never grow beyond that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 17 September 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) 15:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kissinger

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

Executive of a relatively minor engineering company; nearly all media coverage is local. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard (Rich) Bub OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is largely that of a man with a job. Any notability probably rests on the subject's inclusion in Engineering News-Record's Top 25 Newsmakers of 2002 on which he "helped make possible the realization of designer Santiago Calatrava's vision for a $75-million addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum" ([9]; also [10] cites the subject regarding the same project); this feels too light to act as a demonstration of lasting biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - a locally prominent engineer, but not famous or notable by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 23 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Tartu

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

per WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia isn't a travel guide/directory.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of deleting all equivalent English articles. The routesa re changed periodically, so that any such article would require regular maintenance, which we cannot guarantee. Bus info differs from train and tram info, because it is not easy to move rails, but easy to drive a bus down a differnet road. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and per Peterkingiron.--Charles (talk) 21:40, 25 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Bucharest

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

per WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia isn't a travel guide/directory.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of deleting all equivalent English articles. The routesa re changed periodically, so that any such article would require regular maintenance, which we cannot guarantee. Bus info differs from train and tram info, because it is not easy to move rails, but easy to drive a bus down a differnet road. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and per Peterkingiron.--Charles (talk) 21:38, 25 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Karachi

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

per WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia isn't a travel guide/directory. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of deleting all equivalent English articles. The routesa re changed periodically, so that any such article would require regular maintenance, which we cannot guarantee. Bus info differs from train and tram info, because it is not easy to move rails, but easy to drive a bus down a differnet road. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and per Peterkingiron.--Charles (talk) 21:39, 25 September 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Project (2013 Film)

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

WP:NOTABILITY; Googling "The Horror Project" "Focus Films" returns just 15 unique hits, none of which suggest notability at this stage. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF in that as an unreleased film with no coverage it fails WP:NFF. If or when release is confirmed, and only if it gets coverage, we might consider an article on this topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate (or delete). Too soon for a Wikipedia article. It may attain notability later. Incubation will allow work to continue on the article while it waits to establish notability. Deletion is also acceptable, but I think there's some degree of hope for this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with userfying, as returning it to its author as a Userspace Draft and offering instruction and advice would benefit the project in ways an incubation might not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was going to be my original suggestion, but then I settled on incubation to avoid saddling anyone with unwanted responsibility. I figured incubation might be less imposing than unceremoniously dumping into user space, but since you put it that way, maybe userfy is the proper course to take. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+I would be fine with userfying.-Nat Gertler (talk) 13:10, 17 September 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) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Peoples Voice

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

fails notability guidelines. It is effectively unsourced; the two 'so-called' refs do not even reflect the article. Basket _Feudalist 13:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Seems to be an advert for a rather new website. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Notability not established. — O'Dea (talk) 11:01, 22 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media franchise

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

None of the sources within the article discuss a media franchise. They discuss franchising and how film series are not franchises, but not franchises themselves. This whole thing reeks of WP:OR and WP:SYN. —Ryulong (琉竜) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry if this is assuming bad faith, but this seems to be a disruptive AFD based on the long running conflict at Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell. The term media franchise is a descriptive term and applies to some of the largest and most complex series that are types of franchises that are different from business franchises like various fast food enterprises that operate under the corporation, but are self owned. A media franchise is different in that the rights are licensed to create and sell works by different entities that are produced separately of the original creator or through secondary companies that have creative and productive autonomy. Like the $5 billion dollar Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the multi-billion dollar Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, the term has a specific definition that includes spin offs and typically an interrelated continuity or theme that runs central to its works. Some of these are cross-generational. The term's usage is clear in business circles, books and academia as a means of describing a specific type of business licensing and while its popularly and usage is greatest in North America, the term is nonetheless a valid concept that should be on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across the article in the past (I think when it also featured content on "metaseries") and saw its bad state.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are countless sources supporting the use of this name to describe this concept. See:
The idea of the reboot comes from the term for restarting a running but failing computer system. In film or television, the term refers to the idea of taking an existing media franchise and starting anew. Chuck Tryon, On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Movies (2013), page 90, isbn=0813561116.

These days, Harry Potter is just another media franchise similar to Star Wars, X-Men or Pirates of the Caribbean, albeit a massive media franchise. Bernard Cova, ‎Robert V. Kozinets, ‎Avi Shankar, Consumer Tribes (2012), isbn=1136414665.

The texts that increasingly engage students of cinémedievalism are perhaps best described by Jenkins' term “world-making,” which includes not only the imaginary ontology of such texts but also their desire to produce a sustainable and multivalent media franchise, coherent in itself but remaining open to future development. Helen Fulton, A Companion to Arthurian Literature (2012), page 539, isbn=0470672374.

Also, this entire book: Derek Johnson, Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaboration in the Culture Industries (2013), isbn=0814743897.
Cheers! bd2412 T 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter if the movie industry uses the term "franchise" differently from the rest of private business. It's a very common term. Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of such things. The article may need to change to better reflect the way the industry uses the term. --Tysto (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original research and synthesis can be cleaned up. The topic seems quite notable to me, even if the article may need some work. This isn't really the place to argue over the definition of franchise – just whether it's an encyclopedic topic, and this almost certainly is. If you have issues with the content, I suggest an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look through google books and scholar shows the topic easily satisfies WP:GNG. If the article is currently in a poor state, that's a reason for improving it, not deletion. Siawase (talk) 10:51, 21 September 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) 00:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Kolkata

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

Prod contested by an IP without an edit summary. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory; the lack of any sources at all for the list (particularly secondary sources) tells its own story. Many such similar lists have been deleted - see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article when I was trying to clean up the Indian districts pages... just moved stuff over. That was early in my editing days... if it were now, I would have just deleted that content. PhnomPencil (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. WP:NORDIR seems to apply here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of deleting all equivalent English articles. The routesa re changed periodically, so that any such article would require regular maintenance, which we cannot guarantee. Bus info differs from train and tram info, because it is not easy to move rails, but easy to drive a bus down a differnet road. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIR Beside, the constant reappearing of the same links to disambiguation pages (Science City, Technopolis, Dalhousie, Dunlop, Hazra etc.) gives me the idea that the main editor has no clue about proper linking. The Banner talk 13:55, 22 September 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) 00:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations involvement in Asia

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

This article is a Content fork, and the chosen method of forking is not practical. The United Nations does not have a unified effect on the continent of Asia; the fact that a nation is in Asia does not define it's relations with the UN. -- $\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$ $\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$ $\color {Blue}t)$ 08:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Asia is home to more than half the earth's people a big part of the United Nations' involvement should take place there. What this article does is take three examples and generalize from that. Individual notable UN involvements should each have its own article; but there is no point in a general article on the thousands of UN actions in Asia, much less these three.BayShrimp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous; plus there is the problem of defining "Asia"; for this article we would need a clear UN definition based on some Asian-wide focus of attention, and not sure such a thing exists. Otherwise we are left to debate if such and such country should be considered Asia which would be OR. Although Wikipedia has a definition of Asia, not everyone follows that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:41, 16 September 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) 00:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians

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

Content fork from Longevity claims. Title violates WP:ALLEGED. Essentially a fan page created by one user who has not contributed to the article in over 2 years, and added to by another user who has not contributed to it in over a year. Content is redundant, incomplete, outdated, and at present rate of progress will have no "recent" entries within about 6 months. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In my view, the whole world's oldest people suite of articles is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that could bear review and careful pruning. David in DC (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with David that some gentle gardening is in order. The problem, as the nom well knows, is that a serial sock-puppeter has made it his life's mission to delete certain supercentenarian-related articles. Happy to support any good-faith effort by an editor-in-good-standing to start that pruning and the rationale here seems strong. Stalwart111 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information is already available in Longevity claims. CommanderLinx (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to all that has been mentioned above, phrases like "The Brazilian National Institute's declaration strains credulity" make me believe that this article in any form is going to, at the very least, straddle some serious WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP issues for a host of otherwise non-notable individuals and unencyclopedic information. Canadian Paul 17:28, 16 September 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 Branch Davidians. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Davidian views on the Lord's Supper

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

I honestly don't believe the Branch Davidians' view of the Lord's Supper deserves its own article. The Branch Davidians' notability does not stem from their Eucharistic theology; any content in this article that's worth keeping could easily be merged into the Eucharistic theology article which contrasts different positions on the issue. Also, the Branch Davidians' stance on this issue is not only not notable, it isn't even unique to them, as it is essentially the same position shared by the Plymouth Brethren, Schwarzenau Brethren and some Anabaptists. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Branch Davidians. Lack of notability isn't sufficient grounds here, if this page is considered a subarticle of Branch Davidians or Eucharistic theology, but this page as it stands is not sufficiently high quality to stand on its own, nor is Branch Davidians so long as to warrant splitting. Branch Davidians is probably a better merge target in this case, since inclusion of this content in full in Eucharistic theology may be WP:UNDUE. Ibadibam (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salt delete or if you are feeling nice, redirect per Ibadibam. This is a very small denomination, and their views, albeit allegedly unique, have not attracted much notice outside of its members. If, as the nom suggests, this is not even unique, then there's yet another reason to delete it and salt it. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 23 September 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. The consensus is clearly to keep the article, regardless of the technicality of whether the subject passes GNG. Since there are enough reliable sources for the resulting article to pass WP:V, I see no justification or policy-based reason to override the overwhelming consensus to 'keep' that formed in this discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niggers in the White House

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

I'm going to keep this simple and just look at the sources. I think the article is artfully written, but it is stretching references that just aren't there. Let's go through them.

Reference #1: Is this one from the Theodore Roosevelt Center. It's just a simple listing of the poem itself with a brief description, just like the site lists all the other letters and things written by famous people. It doesn't really confer anything to notability at all.

Reference #2: Is this from the Presidential Collections. And it's basically just a copy of the Roosevelt reference, it links to it and everything. Nothing to do with notability here.

Reference #3: Is this from an old 1903 printing of the poem in the Dispatch. It's just a printing of the poem with no commentary at all. It adds nothing to notability.

Reference #4: Is this book that has a single sentence on the poem. Very much trivial coverage.

Reference #5: Is this book, which does't appear to mention the poem at all or even obliquely, unless i'm mistaken.

Reference #6: Is this book, which also doesn't appear to mention the poem at all.

Reference #7: Is this book, with yet again no reference to the poem.

Reference #8: Is this book, which is actually the best reference so far, with a full three sentences on the poem. Which is pretty much nothing and really still just trivial coverage.

Reference #9: Is this news article, which is actually directly about the poem. It is a 1929 article from the Evening Tribune. But it is far more about the incident of it being read and then struck from the record than any real commentary about the poem. That and the datedness of the source really just makes it seem like a minor event.

Reference #10: Is this news article, which is paid-locked, so I can't judge it on quality. But the title has nothing to do with the poem, so I can only assume the coverage in it is trivial. And, again, it is a dated 1929 source.

Reference #11: Is this, which is the same as reference #1, just in image viewer format.

Reference #12: Is this, which is the same reference as #1 and #11.

Do note that the article is subject to change. So the references align with this version of the article, which is the one I was reviewing.

Now, onto the Bibliography section.

Number 1: Is this book, which is not in a readable format. But when I put the name of the poem into the search bar, nothing comes up. It doesn't appear that the slur "niggers" is even used in the book.

Number 2: Is this article in JSTOR that is about the White House dinner that the poem was a response to. But the poem is not mentioned in this article at all.

Number 3: Is this article, another from JSTOR about the dinner. Again, no mention of the poem at all.

Numbers 4, 5 and 6: I'm not going to read, because they're pretty long. But they both appear to be about the dinner as well. If the poem is actually mentioned in them, please let me know, but i'll assume it's not.

External link #1: Is this article, the one and only external link and actually a recent news source! That doesn't mention the poem at all. Okay, moving on then.

So, in total, we have a bunch of sources that don't mention the poem at all, a few sources with a single sentence on the poem, and then a tie between the dated 1929 news article on the poem that is more about the incident and the three sentence bit about the poem in a book. You pick which one you think gives more notability.

But, all in all, there doesn't appear to be any notability of significance here. Maybe enough to have a single paragraph in another article, but certainly not enough to have one all on its own. Thus, I think this article should be Deleted.Silver seren^C 06:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure: although the sources seem to be of poor quality, it seems to me that the article is on important history of the US, and thus possibly notable. Why not slap it with a refimprove instead, and give the creator a chance to find better sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I of course wrote the above before I read Bonkers' mature input on the talkpage of the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to the NY Times article "White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929 (reference 10 mentioned in the AfD nomination, and currently reference 9), and it does note that this poem was included in the Senator's racist motion, and its inclusion was directly criticized by two other senators and eventually struck from the record of proceedings after a debate, so it is relevant to the topic of the article and provides substantive coverage (about six paragraphs) on the poem and its reception. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep For the love of all things nigger... but seriously, we do not expect this to have staggering coverage. Just this much coverage is enough to warrant a decent article. Furthermore, it passed a stringent DYK review and is currently on the main page. You can't go against us. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're the creator of the new masterpiece, No N*ggers, No Jews, No Dogs. Is that headed for Wikipedia's main page too? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that the DYK nomination was unusually "stringent". The reviewing editors did their jobs well, but there wasn't anything beyond the norm. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - However I feel that most DYK noms are stringent, and some drag for weeks before they can get approved! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- And what coverage is that, exactly? Almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it. Silver seren^C 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm surprised the dinner that set this in motion does not have an article itself. Is there a section on it somewhere? I distinctly recall learning about the dinner in high school, and given how long ago that was, it must have been covered to quite an extent. If it turns out the dinner is notable enough for its own article, then this poem may fit better as a section therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this poem surfaced at two dinners. Not just that dinner, so it would not seem right. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary (regarding the old sources), and by gosh there's a heck of a lot of controversy. This goes into some detail as well, as does Life. Likely quite a few offline articles as well. This reminds me of "Langit Makin Mendung" in a way: a controversial work of literature that is terrible as literature, but notable as a social artefact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is all of that coverage is about a single event and barely about the poem at all. Silver seren^C 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added another reference. There are lots out there, and it is a significant historical artefact. St Anselm (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a single reference about an event. It's certainly better than all the other sources, but there is no evidence of ongoing coverage or any critical coverage at all or discussion of the poem outside of the event itself. This gives the event notability, not the poem. Silver seren^C 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears notable, sadly, and has been preserved by the Library of Congress. Giant Snowman 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it's notable, exactly? Especially when almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it? Silver seren^C 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain ~~Weak delete~~ While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from WP:EVENT guideline. It seems to be century old WP:SENSATION. Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination. jni (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, even a mention (not a citation) 70 years later (1996) is already better than most newspaper publications get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still marginally important subject but sources have improved somewhat so I'll capitulate before the keep-camp. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The poem appeared in several places (including, temporarily, the record of the US Senate), and the Baltimore Afro-American printed (most of) the poem in covering the Jessie De Priest incident, along with commentary on the abhorrent racism displayed by the poem. This seems to be a small, but significant, item in U.S. history, and helps to build a picture of US Society in the early 20th century, with numerous sources mentioning it (some in the article, some noted on this page, and also others). Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. -- 101.119.29.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and rename into an article whose main topic is that White House dinner with Booker Washington itself, which appears to be a lot more notable, and to which the existence of the poem is basically just an historical footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly fine with that. There's certainly enough coverage for the dinner to be notable, but the coverage of the poem is severely lacking. Silver seren^C 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to Bonkers' very mature comments relating to the article, I wish it could be deleted. It's notable, though, so it has to stay. Future Perfect at Sunrise brings up a decent point also, but we can discuss at talk. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it's notable? Almost none of the sources even mention the poem at all. Silver seren^C 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Crisco, I think this is a historically notable subject and should be kept. Personally I think that the poem's unmitigated dreadfulness on every conceivable level makes it a subject worth keeping a record of. Removing record because of fear of causing offence also contributes to these things being forgotten. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why it is notable, especially when most of the sources don't even mention the poem. Just because you think it is of historical import isn't a policy-based argument of any kind. Silver seren^C 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, historically notable, passes GNG, possibly expand and rename per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestion. Cavarrone 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It passes GNG because of articles from 1929 that are about an event? That gives the event notability, not the poem. And there is no evidence of all of enduring notability or continuing coverage separate from the reactionary coverage just after the event. Silver seren^C 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and rename as per Someguy1221's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestions. Not notable enough in its own right to merit an article, but a legitimate component of an article on the actual event. Awien (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and topic ban Bonkers from articles related to race for lack of competence. The amount of commentary on this more than 100 years olf poem establishes notability fine. SilverSerens argument that the coverage is not substantial is not convincing, clearly it is not comparable to the amount of coverage expected for high literature but for the kind of satirical/racist poem it is it is clearly substantial. Its not as if we could expect someone to write a book about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think asking for a single article on the poem itself and not on the event is asking too much. Or evidence of non-trivial ongoing coverage beyond 1929. Silver seren^C 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this is obviously a notable historical item, and well worthy of an article. Technical 13 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you give no explanation on why it is notable. You don't discuss the references, you don't refute the statements made in my nomination. You haven't called forth any policy argument whatsoever. Silver seren^C 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion serves no purpose but to hide information that is valuable and of real historical interest. I see no reason why it should be renamed. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another non-policy based argument that doesn't address the nomination statement or any actual policy reason for keeping the article. Silver seren^C 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The poem is only marginally notable, for sure, but there is no reason not to err on the side of inclusion for the reasons I gave. We are not a bureaucracy. And, frankly, I doubt anyone believes this would have been listed for deletion were it not for the title and content of the poem, even though your nomination does not say so. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. Basket _Feudalist 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. Silver seren^C 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You go ahead, girlfriend. Another non-policy based and pro-'I don't like nathty wordth'-based criticism... How many time do you wet yourself when Boyz n the Hood comes on?!?! LOL if you don't hack the lingo bredren Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we censor this article the other 1,366 articles of similar comprise are in peril as well. This is actually a speedy keep!—John Cline (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. Silver seren^C 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sense your frustration Silver seren! I think this is going to be one of those times you'll regret expending so much good effort on folly; but I think you've undertaken a fool's errand. I didn't include a bunch of interlinks to policy because it is my nature not to template an editor as regular as you; and I didn't link fool's errand either for the same respect in your competence. Frankly, I don't want to delve into this subject beyond the cursory review I'd done in proximity of the article's creation. And I do remember seeing enough to warrant the subject's inclusion as having met the burden of wp:gng.
12 online accessible links from wp:rs and 6 book citations is overkill in suggesting it relates to the threshold of significant coverage. Personally I think three solid references are sufficient to secure verifiable notability for a subject, and the additional references are for verification of the article's content; which I'm certain that you know the threshold for content inclusion is less stringent than the threshold for notability.
I'll keep an eye on the emerging consensus in this discussion and if deletion becomes viable by some measure, I'll compile a more specific argument; but this discussion answers itself from a rudimentary level, and I think you know this as well. I also took a very close look at your AfD contributions and do get a sense that a politically correct element exists within this nomination. And I think you mean well by your manner; but it's folly I tell you, and avoiding folly is a divine utterance to my understanding.—John Cline (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - By the way, I agree with Maunus that Bonkers The Clown is disrupting the discussions I've seen regarding this topic and I wouldn't suggest suffering his malfeasance much longer.—John Cline (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that Bonkers is the original creator of this article? Too bad he disrupted us by creating content. Not everyone here cares if someone uses the nigga word in talk. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realize "Bonkers is the original creator of this article" and I did not attempt to speak for everyone, particularly by prefacing my comment with "I agree" and "I wouldn't suggest".—John Cline (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not attempt to remove history. Most here agree the name is abhorrent and John Cline has rightfully pointed to the folly of whitewashing everything in the name of political correctness. I do disagree about topic banning our court jester as throughout history black comedy has been used to draw attention to issues we may have other wise ignored. Bonkers in his demented way has accomplished that here. 172.56.11.197 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, WNC, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, really? Is it that hard to make a policy based argument or at least discuss the nominator's argument? You do know that the closer is meant to disregard any non-policy votes, right? Silver seren^C 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you know that having the nominator respond sarcastically to every "Keep" is rude and annoying, right? As for your complaint WP:NOTCENSORED and [WP:NOTABILITY]] are policy-based !votes, and that you, as nom, don't get to limit the grounds on which other editors based their decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article about the dinner itself, the one given by TR with BTW as a guest. The dinner itself is the important thing. The "poem" is reaction to this event. The effect of this article is to give undue weight to the negative views while just barely mentioning the positive. BayShrimp (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike. Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later. "Datedness" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so it remains notable now. Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article. We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that any of the sources that discuss the poem in a non-trivial manner are the 1929 ones about the Senate event. That would give notability for the event, not for the poem. There is no evidence at all of enduring notability here. And please keep your assumptions about my motives to yourself. Silver seren^C 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete this article or bury it in the test of another article where no one will find it. No one wants to point out the Jim Crow racist history of the "Democratic" Party and make it easy to find for those interested in non-revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — 74.83.124.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge this poem is by an anonymous author written over 100 years ago and is of no historical significance except as a reaction to the dinner hosted by teddy roosevelt for booker t. washington. It belongs in a section labeled as "reactions to the dinner." Agree with Bayshrimp. — Dadahorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Please assume good faith about my DYK review. I resent suggestions that I failed to review the sources. I did review the sources, and I agree that some added context without directly discussing the poem. As others point out, however, the poem is discussed directly in multiple sources from the article. Is that level and amount of discussion up to Silver seren's standards? Obviously not, but the detail in coverage necessary for an article (per WP:GNG) is something that reasonable people can (and frequently do) disagree on (and consequently a prime ground for discussion and consensus-building). Bonkers has behaved embarrassingly throughout this process and I would support a topic ban if anything like this continues (Silver seren himself is starting to bludgeon the process as well). Nevertheless, the poem is notable. Others have mentioned a merger, but there is no article to merge to yet, and that discussion should wait until there is such a target. The fact that the poem was republished for a second historical event makes this seem unlikely. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained how it is notable. I clearly pointed out how, out of the 12 references, 4 are just a catalog listing of the poem, 1 is just a reprinting of the poem itself, 3 don't mention the poem at all, 2 have trivial 1-2 sentence coverage of the poem, and 2 have coverage of an event in the Senate in 1929 that has more to do about the event than the poem itself. So, where is the notability? Silver seren^C 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true; several references discuss the poem, particularly in the context of it having been read in the US Senate in 1929. And I would strongly oppose making the article about the dinner, since that means erasing the Senate episode from the article. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which one(s), 101.119.28.204? Awien (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment I totally agree with Silver Seren: in all the references that mention the "poem" at all, it is as a passing glance in coverage of the actual events. None of them (barring oversight on my part) are about the "poem" itself, which is what would be required to demonstrate notability. Awien (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. "Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ " If there is a valid topic here, the article needs to be deleted in its present form as a racist attack page and re-written from scratch by disinterested authors. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Fortunately, the article has been largely rewritten. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article about the dinner. I agree with FutPerf. The dinner was the notable incident that got most of the attention. The poem is historically significant and deserves to have its own section in the main article, but the main article should be on Teddy Roosevelt's invitation to Booker T. Washington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, a merge is not ideal per reasons laid out by IronGargoyle above. Also by merging content definitely will be swamped. Let it stay as an article on its own and perhaps include a "See also" link to this article if there is an article on the Washington/Roosevelt dinner. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article is well sourced and is notable because it demonstrates the level of Racism in the United States at that time and 30 years later when it again raised its ugly head. The varying reactions of the notable politicians of that time also establish notability. We cannot delete history because we do not like a word no matter how inappropriate it sounds. Deleting the article would be foolish from a sociological and historical perspective. I am sure the reason to delete is well intentioned (but misdirected) but we all know the expression about good intentions. It is simply to important in the history of racism in America to try to bury it. The tone of the article does need to be watched carefully and possibly the article needs to be locked down. My opinion is some articles (due to their controversial nature) should only be edited by vetted academics with expertise in the subject area. That would not hinder submissions but additional editing. The problem with wiki is any fool or agenda pusher (and there are many) can edit but that should have no influence on whether to keep an article or not. That is why wiki's credibility as well sourced, academic tone and neutral point of view have yet to be established. 172.56.10.211 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I wish we could delete the horrible racism from this period of American history, that is unfortunately not a possibility. This is an artifact of that history that received significant coverage and attention on several occasions from the US Congress. It's a subject we can have an encyclopedic article on, and we should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple request - Can anyone show me a single reference that has non-trivial coverage of the poem that is not printed directly after and is not about the 1929 event? That's all i'm asking for. Silver seren^C 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly Silver's fault that he is about the only person in this AfD who understands Wikipedia policy on third-party, non-trivial coverage of the subject itself, and therefore is the only one pointing it out. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Restructure -- The incident, about which the peom was written, was clearly notable and we should have a WP artilce on that. The amount of reaction to the WP article makes clear that this touches a raw nerve with a lot of people who do not like it. I would prefer to see an article written mainly about the events that generated the poem, with the poem discussed near the end of the article, rather than an articel on the poem, which would merely be a fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough non-trivial coverage about the poem itself from independent sources. You can't exclude all coverage of the poem just because it was written when the poem was of public interest, especially when that was 20 years apart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the coverage of the 1929 Senate event is mainly about the event. The mentioning of the poem is not about the poem so much as it being read in the Senate. So, as an event, that might be notable. But the poem by itself is not. There is no critical commentary whatsoever that's been shown about the poem. And there is practically non-existence coverage of the poem when it was first made, other than a sentence or two in articles or books that are otherwise discussing the White House dinner. Again, all i'm asking for is a single article that is actually focused on the poem itself and not the Senate event. Finding a single article shouldn't be that hard if the subject is actually notable. Silver seren^C 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat the above warning: I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. 208.54.40.240 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself doesn't actually make you more right or more convincing. You can ask for whatever you want, but I'm free to decide that policy doesn't demand that I give it to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into an article discussing the dinner. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Coverage is trivial. No "keep" voters have addressed this fatal flaw, and none has given a reason to ignore the guideline. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so many here would vote to keep an article with this title that clearly fails GNG. yuk! Awesome! heh heh! Niggers in the White House! Woah! heh heh! NOTCENSORED! Yay! "Nigger nigger nigger!" "We can so we will!"

Well, this time you can't. It doesn't pass GNG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Added "or merge" 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing childish motives to keep editors is utterly unsupportable, (with, I concede, the possible exception of "Bonkers the Clown"). The childishness exists only in your own last sentence. On the contrary, the reason that "keep" voters have repeatedly given is the fact that this is a significant and striking aspect of US history. The poem was printed and discussed in numerous newspapers from 1901-3 and in 1929. If this were an event happening now - some brouhaha in current newspapers about comments made by a US senator - there would be no doubting we'd have an artiocle on "X's comments controversy", of which there are many such. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass GNG, does it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Or do you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) forms part of its reception history by sources. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) was as a mere footnote to a larger incident? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. It was involved in two quite separate incidents, which is why it is not a good candidate for merging into an article about the dinner. Of course such an article does not exist, so the suggestion that it should be merged into it is really rather meaningless. If such an article is created, a possible merger might be discussed then, though there are, as I have said, good reasons to oppose such a move. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention it in both articles on those topics (if either or both topics pass GNG) or simply delete it. Sorry. This poem doesn't pass GNG. If the one or two incidents around it don't have sufficient coverage for their own articles, then that just reinforces the poem's insignificance. Sorry. Go spray it on a fence somewhere, not on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is nonsensical. There is no doubt that the dinner could have its own article (there are whole books about it as well as an opera by Scott Joplin!). The fact that no-one has created one yet is not an argument that an article on a topic related to it should not exist. That's like saying we should delete an article on the deputy prime-minister of country X because no-one has yet created an article on the prime-minister. Many editors diagree with you about GNG, so just reasserting your belief more dogmatically, but with no coherent argument, does nothing of value. Your last childish sentence just indicates that GNG is not the real issue for you. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So write an article about the notable dinner and, if you like, mention the otherwise non-notable poem. As for many editors disagreeing with me: eh? This place is full of fools and bigots, many of whom will flock to an AFD like this for the lulz and worse. That's why these things are not a vote. This poem does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, hence it is not notable. By all means mount an argument to support ignoring WP:GNG in this instance, but so far no one has chosen to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to editors who have given coherent arguments as fools and bigots is both foolish and bigoted. No-one with half a brain can believe that the people who support the existence of this article are doing so from bigotry. The only "bigotry" and prejudice I see on this page comes from the opposite POV. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are fools and bigots. You can never win a fool or a bigot in an argument, Anthony, so just drop it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're not all fools and bigots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge into an article about the dinner(s)). I find no compelling arguments here as to the notability of the poem. As has been mentioned many times, the references that support this article at best demonstrate the notability of the dinner that inspired this poem. The keep votes here appear to be, without exception, ignorant of either the notability guideline or the content of the references. This forum of course has the power to carve an IAR-based exception to the GNG (this is how little hamlets got kept at AFD for years before they were explicitly declared notable) - but it's tiring to see people pretend that this topic meets the guideline when it plainly doesn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "keep" !voters here are quite aware of the sources and of the GNG. We have the subject of the article discussed repeatedly over a substantial period of time, with a substantial discussion in, among other sources, the Baltimore Afro-American. I find it very disturbing that some editors want to refocus the article to be solely about the dinner, thereby removing the perhaps even more significant 1929 Senate event. One can't solve racism in the present by pretending that racism in the past didn't happen. -- 101.119.29.15 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single person on this page is pretending that racism in the past did not happen, so I have no clue why you are trumpeting that line. You are also disturbed about something that isn't happening, since no one has suggested that the article be solely about the dinner - rather, the consistent suggestion is that the article on the poem become a part of an article on the dinner. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and since the 1929 Senate event involves the poem but is completely unrelated to the dinner, it would get quietly swept under the carpet. -- 101.119.29.17 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We now have an article on the 1901 dinner, and an article on the 1929 tea party/Senate reading. Both cover the poem, and that is where it belongs. There is significant coverage in multiple sources of those two events. There is not significant coverage of this poem in multiple sources. It is mentioned once, in a footnote, of a biography of an African American Evangelist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's obviously enough sourced material here about the poem in particular, on multiple occasions, that it can't be merged into an article about a dinner, and of course we should not consider deleting it. Yes, there is a deep racial ugliness to it - conveying the truth, however, is our mission here. I wish that we had made more progress faster against racism, so that by now this would be a "Yankee Doodle" that folks of all races at the White House could sing over 'sparkling wine' to mutual laughter. But the time will come... Wnt (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sourced material about the poem in particular? Give me a single piece of critical commentary on the poem itself. Silver seren^C 05:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for critical commentary (from the article): "Republican senator ... Hiram Bingham (from Connecticut) ... described the poem as 'indecent, obscene doggerel' which gave 'offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and [...] to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.'" -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does seem to just meet the bare minimum for WP:GNG with reference eight being compelling as a source mentioning the poem a hundred years after it was published. A merge doesn't seem appropriate since one event associated with the poem doesn't concern the only viable merge target.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: additional references to the 1929 reading of the poem can be found in Pan-African chronology III: a comprehensive reference to the Black quest for freedom in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Asia, 1914-1929 (Everett Jenkins, McFarland & Co., 2001) and The New York Times. -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I've searched the text of that book and can't even find a mention, let alone significant coverage. What pages? Do you have a citation for the New York Times's significant coverage of the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has passed a DYK review. enough sourced material. I see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is a notable item, Despite not liking the name It deserves an article Davey2010Talk 18:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid rationale for deletion. (I don't like it either.) If it didn't meet WP:GNG at the time of this nomination (which I believe it did), it certainly meets it now.Joefromrandb (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House which mentions the poem and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House which mentions the poem and describes its 1929 reading in the US Senate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And since neither article is a superset of the other or has rightful claim to be the article on this poem, that indicates that we should have an article on the poem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The poem itself isn't notable. It was reproduced several times in 1901-3; one newspaper article discussed it in detail in 1903, and it is mentioned in the footnote of a biography of an evangelical minister. There isn't significant coverage in multiple sources addressing the poem. All of the "further reading" and most of the citations in the article cover the White House dinner and tea party without mentioning the poem at all. This is a puffed-up piece of trollery. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You left out several sources, such as the mention in the Joplin book, and did you perhaps forget about the poem's 1929 reading in the Senate? That received widespread coverage in 1929, and is also discussed in books on Afro-American history. I'd add Life Magazine's coverage to the article, except that someone would claim it was WP:OR when I pointed out that they're being sarcastic when they call it "a pretty little poem," and call Blease himself "chivalrous." This is a notable event in US history, though one I guess many people would prefer to forget. -- 120.144.24.102 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joplin book says, in total, "The Sedalia Sentinal printed a poem on page one entitled 'Niggers in the White House,' which concludes with a black man marrying the president's daughter." That's it. That is a trivial mention. We're looking for significant coverage.
Where is the Life article? I am open to persuasion, you know. Just show me some actual significant coverage. The 1903 Baltimore Afro-American article I alluded to above is the only significant discussion of the poem per se that I've been shown. Bring a few more like that to the discussion and you'll have made the case. I've been looking very hard and have found nothing. Every source, except the Afro-American article, is either trivial or about a single event - the reading of Blease's Senate resolution - not the poem, per se.
The 1929 reading in the Senate is an event, centering on the behavior of the notable Coleman Bleaze, and it is dealt with, in detail, at Coleman Livingston Blease#Blease as Senator, where it belongs.
What "books on Afro-American history" give significant coverage of the poem, and why aren't they cited in the article? If they exist, why are you edit-warring to keep a list of books in the "Further reading" section that don't even mention the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be kept. At this point we would all do better to focus on improving the article rather than continued bickering here. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove that list of "Further reading" that doesn't even address the poem, that would be a start. Then perhaps you could find one source, other than the Afro-American article, that critically addresses the poem (more than one sentence from an outraged legislator.) I've been looking, and failed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "Further reading" section is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page (I have commented there). As for finding more sources, that would be wonderful, but there's certainly consensus here that the article, as it stands, meets WP:GNG. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's been asserted, but anyone who's been challenged to point to the exact sources that contain significant coverage of the poem as opposed to trivial mentions (apart from the Afro-American article) has failed to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to do so to your standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The significant event is the dinner, the poem is a bit of historical detritus connected to that, but insignificant itself. This is original research synthesis, stringing a bunch of sources together, many of which don't even mention the actual subject of this article, to create a facade of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and Gamaliel's points above regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references do not establish notability for the poem in of itself and amount to merely trivial coverage at best. Perhaps merge some content to the article on the dinner as appropriate. As I understand it AfDs aren't straight votes per se, but based on the arguments made as well, so the point being asked above about what supports significant, non-trivial, coverage seems valid. Also think the assertions that the nom is merely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT to be a bit against WP:AGF when there is a reasonable rationale and argument provided as the basis of the nom. Number36 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot agree with the nominator's discounting pre-1930 sources, since notability is not temporary. If anything, readily available sources for a century-old subject are likely just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this does edge past the notability bar. But if it is the dinner that is truly notable, it may be best to redirect this to an article about the dinner, merging a small amount of relevant content. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the point about Notability not Being Temporary, reading WP:NTEMP that wouldn't appear to necessarily mean that early coverage of that nature (and as you say it's in the context of the dinner in any case) necessarily establishes notability. As per the example there "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Reading 'subject' for person, and 'article about that subject'), this would seem to be applicable in this case where it was mentioned only in the context of a single event. So I agree with your point regarding redirecting and merging with the article on the dinner.Number36 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold on~~. This article will survive or not on the basis of whether there is significant coverage of the poem in multiple sources. I've read, I think, all of the sources for this article now and don't believe it passes GNG. I will collate them - those that actually mention the poem (the vast majority just talk about the dinner, the tea party and the senatorial rebuke) - with a transcript of every word addressing the poem, and hopefully that will make the question of notability clear, one way or the other. Presently the above consists of a lot of disputed claims regarding the nature of the sources. However, I won't be able to get to this for a day or so. So I would appreciate it if anyone contemplating closing this could wait a bit until that's done. (Anyone who wants to make a start is welcome to do so.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next day or so. I'm traveling. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into articles about dinner - the article as stands, presents a reasonably good analysis per the sources. Generally, it meets notability beyond the momentary coverage. However, the arguments towards upmerge also suggest a much better (and more thorough) article should subsume this one, Sadads (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, a merge is not ideal, as the poem was involved in two significant events at the White House. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there is room, though, for the article about one dinner to hold the main discussion and the second to have another section referring with a See also, to the original section. Sadads (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Silverseren's nomination statement does a very good job of dismantling the referencing. The title is utterly horrendous, and the DYK hook that was tied to it even more so. Beyond that, there is a serious issue here that most of the keep !voters haven't even attempted to look at the sourcing properly; they've looked at the number of citations, and concluded that this must be notable. Notability isn't temporary, that is correct; however, the notability is for the dinner (which has its own article at present) and the tea, not the poem. Now, what we're left with is a poem that has a lot of mentions, but that's all they are; passing mentions. The events are notable, but the poem is not. For obvious reasons, the title is not appropriate for a redirect. I seriously hope that the poor sod who eventually has to close this can see through the non-policy based !votes on both sides, and give us a proper result one way or another; one that isn't no consensus. There may be some content that is worth merging into one of the relevant articles, and if there is, that should be done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact multiple sources describing the poem and its being read out in the Senate (including sources in the article, other books, and Life Magazine of 1929); this is a separate issue from the dinner and tea (though done in reaction to the tea). The title is indeed horrendous, but WP:NOTCENSORED. There's no point whitewashing the past: someone did write this poem, multiple newspaper editors decided to print it, and a US Senator read it out aloud in Congress. No doubt many US editors are ashamed of this, but Wikipedia's job is to present the historical facts in a WP:NPOV way. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the bullshit about "not censored" and "whitewashing." The notable things here are the events, not the poem. The sources have been completely and utterly taken apart by a very accurate nomination statement, and it is clear that the mentions are only in passing, and that there is no independent notability whatsoever. And I'm not a US editor, so playing that card is wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want us to cut the "bullshit" about not censored, cut the bullshit about "the title is utterly horrendous". That's censorship talk, pure and simple.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "censorship talk", racism is NEVER acceptable. Regardless of that, the IP was using the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored as a reason for keeping the article; the issues extend far beyond the title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who begins a "delete" vote with, "The title is utterly horrendous", has no business telling anyone to "cut the bullshit". That's an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" vote, plain and simple. Especially when it's followed by the baseless and false, "For obvious reasons, the title isn't appropriate for a redirect". Niggers in Paris is a redirect. Nigger Jack is a redirect. And we have other unpleasant redirects, such as James the Shit, which redirects to a featured article about a very well-known king. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misapplied, but it applies perfectly here. Get over it. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off is it a "IDONTLIKEIT" vote. Unlike the majority of people in here, I've actually used some policy-based arguments. Which you are either blind to, or just want to ignore. Read what I wrote properly, or go away. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you wrote; so will others, which is obviously why you're so upset. So, no thank you. You are free to "fuck off and go away", though. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you got RFC/Ued... You clearly didn't read any of what I actually wrote, other than the bits you wanted to. Otherwise you would know full fucking well that it wasn't an IDONTLIKEIT vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Repeating that again and again won't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: On a scale from George Washington to Barack Obama, how much did the word "nigger" influence your decision? If the answer is any higher than Andrew Jackson, you probably have racism and language on your mind. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has very extensive articles on the words "nigger" and "fuck". It is possible to have a valuable article that educational, historical, and profane. Just because the title makes schoolchildren laugh does not mean that it's bad. —Zenexer [talk] 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For some of these people, it's higher than George Washington. It's John Hanson. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what some people are trying to portray (and my attempts to close the conversation have been spitefully and pathetically reverted, not that I expected anything else from that user; it's their modus operandi), it is very much a tertiary factor. The simple fact of the matter is that the referencing is an attempt at "look, we have loads of references, it must be notable" when, in fact, many don't mention the poem, and even those that do usually do it in passing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's the motive of the guy who wrote it - he knew that if he put "nigger" in the title of an article it would get lots of hits when it appeared on Wikipedia's front page (and he'd lined up 2 more "nigger" articles for the front page), and the fact that it's not notable - there is only one source that gives the poem itself significant coverage (the Afro-American journal mentioned above). Tomorrow, I swear, I'll summarise the sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming out and admitting that your dislike of the article's creator is the real reason you want it gone. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike the author. In fact over the last couple of hours I've warmed to him considerably. He was trolling, though: referring to African Americans as "niggers" in conversation and wearing that swastika. No, I'm beginning to think he might be quite something, actually. It remains to be seen of course. I think he may have actually been genuinely oblivious to the degree of offense that behaviour would cause.

I'm not worried that white or Asian schoolkids would have sniggered at seeing the title, Zenexer. I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering. But this is closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's already had its day in the sun. If the thing was worth keeping, I really wouldn't be bothering with this. It's just that there is the notability problem. So it was the obvious dubious intent of the author that got my interest, but it's the notability problem that's kept me here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering." That is, IMO, a fundamentally misplaced view. Absolutely. Black children hear the word "nigger/nigga" all the time, especially in the music many of them choose to listen to. This is not a question of "protecting" vulnerable people. This article epitomises what Wikipedia should be about. This is the kind of article that will help children, black or white, who are studying the history of racism. It is an article that they and their tutors can use to explore the difference between the White House of Roosevelt and Obama. It draws atention to a moment of cultural history in a way that a more conventional article would not. The article brings together disparate moments of history is a way that makes them 'live' more vividly. It matters not one jot what motivated Bonkers. Maybe the person who created the "penis" article did so because they got a thrill from writing the word "penis". Who knows? It doesn't matter. All that really matters is whether it is useful, properly referenced and informative. This article gives the context clearly. Ironically, this whole outrage is topsy-turvy. Anyone could upload the poem without any of the cultural context and commentary to Wikisource (since it was published befiore 1923), and there would be no "policy based" arguments for deletion at all. It would be there in all its "glory" for anyone to read. Yes, its notability is borderline, but we should err on the side of inclusion in cases such as this, since the historical significance of the topic is clear. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. That tally of sources is looking borderline now - and I haven't finished.

I'm merging the articles about the dinner and the tea into an overview about blacks in the White House from the Haitian ambassador in 1798(?) to Sammy Davis Jr. under Nixon (presently clumsily-named White House hospitality toward African Americans). I suppose if everything worth knowing about this poem can be comfortably contained in that article, it may make sense to merge Niggers in the White House into it, but that will only be clear once the full inventory of sources is done, and we know how much there actually is to say about the poem itself. (There is a lot of repetition.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I do find the insinuations on the page that the nominating editor and people voting to delete/merge could only possibly be motivated by IDONTLIKE a little irritating and condescending though, and a needless distraction, there are plenty of policy based arguments here with supporting points/evidence provided, WP:AGF applies.Number36 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N requires that the subject of the article be notable; per WP:GNG, this means that the subject have received detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. As Silverseren has clearly pointed out, this subject (the poem) has not been discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. It's been mentioned a few times, and even reprinted, but that is not itself sufficient per our notability rules. Of course, should some of the editors looking into this dig up more sources with significant coverage of the poem (i.e., not the dinner), then this could be kept or recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update Added #Policy tree. Any objections, please contact me. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can see a scan of the poem here. Also, in your searches, remember to use "white house", not "whitehouse"--they bring up very different results. Remember, primary sources cannot be references, so that image is not a valid reference. The rest of the page could be, I suppose, though I'd avoid it. —Zenexer [talk] 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be an acceptable--though perhaps minimal--number of potentially reliable sources scattered about various archives. Whether they establish notability is another question. —Zenexer [talk] 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy tree

We seem to have gone off track, because I see angry mastodons. Discussions are meant to be objective, not personal. I'm creating this area for bulleted, specific facts. I plan to enforce objectivity in this section. Participation is obviously optional, but your contributions will help newcomers quickly pull out the facts. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each relevant policy should have a bullet. Under each policy's bullet will be a sub-list describing the ways in which the policy applies. Such descriptions can have further sub-bullets giving concrete examples (for example, specific references that are problematic). Do not sign the bullets; these are not comments. Avoid using shortcuts (WP:EXAMPLE) for policy bullets without adding descriptive text. Information on relevance should be short and sweet.

Example:

* [[Wikipedia:Policy 1]]
** How it applies
** Another application
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 2]]
** Relevance
*** Concrete example 1
*** Concrete example 2
*** Concrete example 3

A personal remark discredits a fact. Any personal or biased comments should be removed, and a note should be left on the author's talk page. Be sure to retain any objective material. Try to salvage as much as possible. Do not add any new information or change any existing information; you should be removing only, without changing the meaning of anything. Do not add your signature. If the meaning of the contribution must change to make it acceptable, remove it entirely.

If an edit war occurs, any controversial text should be enclosed in a <s>~~strikethrough~~</s> tag, unless the text is clearly true and objective, particularly to third parties. Further discussion should occur only on the talk page.

You should not be drawing any conclusions within this section. Such analysis is left to the reader. There is one exception: there can be a "Serious problems" pseudo-policy bullet which addresses issues not outlined by a policy. For example, if a large number of zero-edit users suddenly support an AfD, that is a serious problem. Serious means serious: these are problems that must be addressed by bureaucrats, and cannot logically be solved through discussion, or that outright break the discussion process.

Before responding, please review Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. This will prevent the majority of problems.

Wikipedia:Offensive material
- Use of the word "nigger"
  - Appears 6 times in body of article
  - Appears 1 time in title
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
- Archive searches (exact, full-phrase match)
  - Library of Congress: no results
  - JSTOR: no results
  - Google Books: 982 results
  - Google Scholar - Articles: 4 results
  - Google Scholar - Legal: no results
  - Google Scholar - Federal Courts: no results
  - Google News Archives: 3 results excl. Wikipedia

Reliable secondary sources that mention the poem

Citation		Quote
Jones, Stephen A.; Freedman, Eric (2011). Presidents and Black America: A Documentary History. Los Angeles: CQ Press. p. 349. ISBN 9781608710089.		In the U.S. Senate, Coleman Blease, a South Carolina Democrat, introduced a resolution of criticism that included a doggerel poem titled "Niggers in the White House" that was so offensive it was immediately expunged from the Congressional Record—but not before it had been read aloud on the floor of the Senate.
"Blease Poetry is Expunged from Record". The Afro-American. 22 June 1929. Retrieved 16 September 2013.		(Paraphrase) The resolution was read and Senator Hiram Bingham (Rep., Conn.) described the poem as "indecent, obscene doggerel ... [designed to give] offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and to give offense to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution." Edge and Bingham, supported by King, Walshand and Borah, objected, made points of order and asked for it to be tabled Blease withdrew the resolution - because it offended Bingham, not because it offended negroes - and it was expunged from the Record. Quotes part of the resolution and 10 stanzas of the poem.
Ray Argyle (2009). Scott Joplin and the Age of Ragtime. McFarland. pp. 56–. ISBN 978-0-7864-4376-5.		In Joplin's adopted home town, the Sentinel splashed on its front page a poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House." In its final line a black marries the President's daughter. The inspiration for this invective might have been drawn in part from the fact that Roosevelt's daughter Alice often asked the Marine Band to play "Maple Leaf Rag" at White House Parties."
Edward A. Berlin (1996). King of Ragtime: Scott Joplin and His Era. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-535646-5.		The Sedalia Sentinel printed a poem on page one entitled "Niggers in the White House," which concludes with a black man marrying the President's daughter.
"Offers "Nigger" Poem". Evening Tribune. June 18, 1929. pp. 7–.		Incorporated in the resolution was a lengthy poem entitled "Niggers in the White House," which was severely criticised by Senators Edge and Bingham, both Republicans.
Edward J. Robinson, To Save My Race from Abuse: The Life of Samuel Robert Cassius, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2007, p.183		The Greenwood Chronicle published a derisory poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." A stanza of the poem went: [12th stanza]
"White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929. pp. 38–.		(Paraphrase) The resolution included "Niggers in the White House", criticised by Edge and Bingham Edge raised a point of order to exclude the poem from the Record but the rule he cited was deemed not to apply Edge raised a motion that the entire resolution be expunged but was deemed out of order Bingham raised a motion that "the resolution be referred to the District Committee but its text omitted from the record" Blease assented, because it offended Bingham, not for any offense it may give to "the niggers." The motion received unanimous consent.
Life vol. 94, 1929. [11]		Cole Blease, chivalrous Senator from South Carolina, read into the Record a pretty little poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House"...
Nicholas Von Hoffman, Organized Crimes, Harper & Row, 1984, p. 23 [12]		The matter reached the floor of the Senate today when Sen. Coleman T. Blease (D, S.C.) read a poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." After several of his colleagues requested, Sen. Blease agreed to have it struck from the Congressional Record, not, as he said, "because I am ashamed of my verse or consider myself an inferior poetaster, but out of deference to the misconceived feelings of some of the other members of this chamber...

Comment - The extent of likely copyrighted material replicated here is such that I'd prefer deleting it to be safe. No copyvios please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two extensive quotes. The remainder I think conform to Wikipedia:Non-free content and WP:QUOTE. If I've got that wrong, please revert. I'll include summaries of the two deleted extensive quotes soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. These are from the article and this page. Are there any other reliable secondary sources that address the poem (not just reprints)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. I think that's the sum total of the coverage in reliable secondary sources over 112 years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly there are also other, offline, sources, but even what's in the table is IMHO enough for notability. -- 101.119.14.207 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just stick to what we have been able to find. I haven't participated in enough of these debates to know what usually passes for significant coverage in multiple sources but the above looks trifling to me. Hopefully an experienced closer will know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Anthonycole is right that what he has tabulated is the sum total of the coverage of the text, what it amounts to is a number of mentions, but nothing that constitutes an analysis of the text as such. Today's (Sept 27, 13) Featured Article Whaam! is a classic example of what an actual analysis of a work consists of: sections dealing with the background and the history, a description of the work, its reception, a thorough analysis and interpretation of the work AS SUCH, and a discussion of its legacy. Niggers in the White House has apparently never been the object of such a study of the text IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and therefore clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines. Awien (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whaam! is one of the most famous of all 20th century works of art, so the comparison is pointless. Obviously Whaam! is much better known and far more widely written about. The question is whether it passes a basic threshold of notability, not whether it's famous. There are other sources, by the way. For example, it is discussed in David Day's article, for example. No doubt there are other instances of its discussion in 1901-3, 1929 and in recent scholarship. It does not have to have literature uniquely dedicated to it and it alone. We have separate pages dedicated to every single one of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets, and yet very few of them have books or articles dedicated to that sonnet alone. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer. I don't know if the above table represents "significant coverage in multiple sources" for these purposes but you should be aware that we now have Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House which together contain most of the information in the table, and I am in the process of merging those two and adding prior and later history to make White House hospitality toward African Americans. When finished, it will comfortably accommodate all of the noteworthy information in the table. I'll be doing that over the next couple of days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough evidence for historical significance. Even if the information is used elsewhere, the sone is significant in its own right and needs an article .he requirements listed by Awien for an article on a literary work are excessive here --they're the requirements for GA, not just for passing AfD . (I can not exactly see the argument for making a parallel with Shakespeare's sonnets, each individual one of which does in fact have all this information available from good sources--but the individual sonnets are world-famous, not merely notable .). Notable is enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 28 September 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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Owens hoax

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

Not a notable hoax. Got a brief spate of coverage, but no words on it after the fact. Absolutely no updates since 2008, outside one passing mention in 2012. Previous two AFDs from 2008-09 closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the previous AfDs were:

Closed no consensus 2 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens

Closed no consensus 13 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)

OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge Does not seem to have lasting notability. However, in conjunction with Reddit serial killer hoax there may be enough for an article Lying about the past. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lying about the past could possibly be a more fleshed out article than any of the individual hoaxes. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was cited by PC World magazine in January 2011 as one of the top 10 wikipedia hoaxes ever.[13]. See also this 2013 book published by the professor involved, published by U of Mich press.[14]. I do think an alternate option would be to merge into something that doesn't seem to exist yet, a fork from Reliability of Wikipedia on the most notable wikipedia hoaxes (there is Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, but that is not in mainspace and includes many non-notable hoaxes.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is giving aid and comfort to T. Mills Kelly, someone who has purposely sought to undermine Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on truthfulness and accuracy. We should not have articles that give honor to those who deliberately try to undermine it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about those who unintentionally undermine it? Should that really effect notability? Should the Great Moon Hoax be excluded because it was an obvious fraud on the populace?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Kelly thinks or finds comforting has zero to do with notability, which is the argument TPH made in nominating this article. Steven Walling • talk 05:38, 16 September 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) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article show that it was a notable hoax. To Johnpacklambert's point, I do not see that the article gives either "honor" or "aid and comfort" to the professor whose students promulgated the hoax. I think that it is essential for Wikipedia to frankly discuss its past failings, so as to better detect and avoid future hoaxes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all notable events of the past continue to generate constant coverage, and that doesn't make them any less notable. That's why we call it history. This event clearly passes the basic tests of WP:V and general notability, as demonstrated by the sources involved. Steven Walling • talk 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep There has been discussion and coverage of this, as a specifically targeted hoax. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the following coverage since 2008 in addition to what was already mentioned: [15] [16] [17].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Milowent and User:The Devil's Advocate have demonstrated continued coverage meeting IRS criteria appearing in 2011 and 2012. While an event of limited scope, subject meets WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. Puts the subject past the event bar for me. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG criteria. Has appropriate coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 17 September 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) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Ding

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

Biography of a promising student who does not meet the general notability requirement, the professor test, or the criteria for a notable musician. She received passing mention in multiple independent news sources, but those articles were covering competitions which are disallowed by the notability guidelines for academics and musicians. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Intel International Science and Engineering Fair is the premier science fair, however, the award she won is not the top prize. Given how many recognitions are given at the ISEF, we should limit notability to the top winners. This per WP:ANYBIO "significant honor". The trip to the Whitehouse is not uncommon and she went with a group. The minor planet naming is cool, but it's a 'minor' planet (so far). This looks like WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ding seems to be teetering on the edge of notability. While she doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:MUSICBIO, her multiple appearances as a finalist for science fairs and musical competitions, the earning of a Caroline D. Bradley Scholarship, appearing on the Daily Show, and having a minor planet named for her all add up to demonstrate a degree of notability that meets WP:BIO. Not all of the coverage has been just passing mentions - see for example this article from The Oregonian. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 01:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really seem notable to me. While her work has been impressive, it doesn't really seem noteworthy enough for an article to me. Laxfan1977 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The WP:PUFFERY at play moves me to the WP:TOOSOON side. For example, the article states she was "featured" on the Daily Show for "her work on quantum physics" but in reality she was not mentioned by name and it was part of a humorous bit that had nothing to do with her work. --Esprqii (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my stance on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Iyengar, which applies equally here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:52, 18 September 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) 00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEA Process Engineering

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

What brought this to my attention was some edit-warring to remove possibly encyclopedic content about this company's history and to add promotional content about "recent key developments". On trying to find independent reliable sources on which to base the article I drew a blank, so it appears that this company is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 September 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) 03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Subject appears totally non-notable. No citations in the article, and a Google search turns up nothing but a couple press releases. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:36, 17 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Health

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

PROD removed by article creator. Longtime advocacy group that fails the test for multiple, non-trivial sources about the subject, in which there is only one via Bloomberg that I've been able to find.[18] Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia Policy, I removed the box raising the issue of notability after making further edits and expanding the article. For more than two decades the group has been cited multiple times in every major media in the United States, from the major networks, newspapers and blogs. It has testified to Congress and to the FDA, and has been an active and -- whether one agrees with their views -- notable voice in the health policy debate. Moreover, if one searches Wikipedia for other public policy groups (try using "citizens for"), this group appears to fall within the parameters defined for notability. The citations in the article include the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, The La Times, ABC News, and numerous other blogs and legitimate news outlets. That the group is making news is notable enough. But there have been numerous articles and blogs "about the group," including two included in the Wikipedia article.Wanderingaroundaimlessly (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGO, existing sources in article confirm #1 and #2. I'm confident more sources can be added if needed, an established and well known advocacy group in the US. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:37, 11 September 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) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and noted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:48, 19 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Z. Blazevich

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

No significant, independent coverage of the individual to establish notability. The sources provided refer primarily to the company. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked and renamed the article so it is about the company (primarily) and the person who founded it. I believe this should satisfy the concerns of the nom. Keep per coverage of business in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:37, 4 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM - DonCalo (talk) 14:44, 8 September 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) 02:34, 16 September 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.

A. D. Lublinskaya

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no votes to delete (Non-admin closure) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Academic. I am all for inclusion of most historians, but publication of a single book ([19]), and no significant coverage otherwise doesn't seem to cut it, I am afraid. In other words, fails WP:PROF requirement for academic notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some respectable cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Fully complies with the first criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." As the editor who created the article, I didn't add any more of the several references from reliable sources that are available out there because the three existing ones cover the requirements... and having more references than actual sentences does seem a bit like overkill. Literature, both scientific and fictional, is full of "one-book wonders", so am surprised that "publication of a single book" is cited as a reason for AfD. While not in the league of fiction bestsellers, Cambridge University Press has considered Lublinskaya's work sufficiently relevant to bother translating it. --Technopat (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF. Found a number of sources including a full obit (she died in 1980). If it helps, the book "French Absolutism" is used in two university courses,[20][21] and a University of Oxford biography list.[22] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, which asks for multiple independent reviews of the author's work. Here are four: The English Historical Review at [23]; The New York Review of Books at [24]; French Studies at [25]; and Economic History Review at [26]. Novickas (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped rescue this, I withdraw this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 17 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Hyatt

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

Alice Hyatt is not someone who has notability outside the film and show where she has appeared. She is covered enough in the articles on these, we do not need a stand alone biography for a person who has no assertion of notability. The article has had tages for improvement of soruces for 4 years and nothing has been done. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually while it has a primary sources tag (from December 2007) the article itself lacks any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same problems with related articles that are unsourced, anecdotal and appear to be constructed on original research:

Perhaps they can be considered together. JNW (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add those. I have never done a multi-part AFD before. I generally avoid AFD because it has way too high a threshold for starting, which is probably why these unsourced pages have existed for years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other two. Castleberry's article does provide as a source the IMDB article on Alice, but that does not seem to be enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced fictional characters - this belongs on the show wikia, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's no question the article needs work, as do many articles surrounding TV shows. This is the main character in a highly notable TV show (one of the most popular sitcoms of the 70s/80s[27]), albeit not a TV show from 2000s like One Tree Hill (TV series) where there are individual articles about a number of the key characters. Roughly speaking, what I've seen from prior AfDs of this type is that the main character usually can support an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd nomination) (Thelma being a pretty good example because like Alice, the character has appeared in more than one setting) for some examples. Alice Hyatt is probably even a stronger candidate due to writing about her character in the context of gender studies.[28][29][30]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article lacks any citations, and has had a note about this problem for over 5 years. This suggests no citations can be found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the light of sources being available even if not used, it simply suggests WP:NOEFFORT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I confess the quality of the prose really prejudiced me against this, but the Google Books search provides citations; especially helpful is Martin Scorsese's America[31]. In essence, the current article and those of the associated characters need to be sheared and reconstructed with acceptable sources, even if it means starting with stubs. JNW(talk) 03:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the (now) stub article on this notable character and allow rebuilding over time and through editorial efforts. Thanks to User:JNW for the good-looking-out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While i'ts not listed in the delsorts (why?), the article on the also iconic character of Florence Jean Castleberry is now also at AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be discussed in a separate AfD, I strongly oppose merging that AfD into here. If no separate AfD is created, the AfD note should be removed fromthe FJC article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... separate the AFD's. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some searches:

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander (politician)

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

Mayor of a borough in New Jersey, population around 7500. Clearly Fails the non GNG criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. As for WP:GNG, the subject has gotten some press, including some references that were once in the article, and then removed, that sourced rather negative claims about the subject. In light of which, I think the subject fails the notability guidelines, and the article should be deleted. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be legitimate issues here, but "Jew Jersey"?!?!?! Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a typo, I've been WP:BOLD and fixed it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was indeed a typo, my apologies if it offended anyone. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This former mayor of a small town fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Anup Mehra ^✈ 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source is a primary source impermissibly used and does not support the statement which cites it. The second is permissibly used but consists of just a fact supporting a fact; I.E. is not suitable coverage to establish wp:notability. The third (his own Linked-in account) is not suitable to support the statement or relevant for wp:notability. So we have near zero suitably sourced material and zero sources of the type to establish wp:notability. There is a possibility that wp:notabiliity-suitable sources exist. However, while waiting for somebody to possibly find them, there is no enclyclopedic article material worth keeping. The article should get deleted for now. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he was notable there should be newspaper clippings even if it was only in the local paper. Without them it should be deleted. SD (talk contribs) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bio for Mayor Scott Alexander is similar to other Mayor bios and should not be deleted. Please reference the Category:Mayors of places in New Jersey. If this bio fails then many of the bios nuder this category fail as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyboy100 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you understand. This is mostly not a judge of real-world notability or prominence or of the position held. It is whether or not it has established wp:notability according to WP:Notability. Briefly, whether or not it has secondary source references with substantive coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. JRPG (talk) 19:34, 18 September 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 List of hoaxes. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit serial killer hoax

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

Does not seem to be notable. Notability tagger said, "one atlantic article is the only coverage outside of self coverage on edwired blog and the reddit/wikipedia pages". I've found no other proof of this being a notable hoax. Compare the related Edward Owens hoax, which had marginally more sourcing and was still deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of hoaxes. "Internet hoax" redirects to Hoax, but has very little coverage. I found two more: Boing Boing [32] and GigaOm [33] both talk about this example in the wider context. So we have a few sources, and clearly this is a high-profile example of a failed Internet hoax, but it probably doesn't merit a separate article and our general summary of what an Internet hoax is frankly stinks. Someday "Hoaxes on the Internet" may be a good candidate for its own article... Steven Walling • talk 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Little reliable sourcing, one event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you seeing that we aren't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of hoaxes. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both this and Edward Owens hoax to George Mason University's historical hoaxes. If the university does not like that title it should not teach the course that generated them. I agree that the sourcing is not good, but we will probably not do better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as Peterkingiorn says, both of the George Mason hoaxes to their own article, something like George Mason University's historical hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 18 September 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. Will restore article's prior history for licensing purposes, pursuant to the discussion here. —Darkwind (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Sjoman

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

Fails GNG for notability. Previously deleted per AfD. All reference are either blogs, one companies reviews of her books, or blogs. Still suffers from the same problems as last listing. Caffeyw (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 book with 39 cites. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Obviously, since it was I who created the article. I wasn't involved in the earlier deletion discussion but was asked to look at the article. It seemed to me that the well-researched contrarian view of Yoga history as presented in the Mysore book was sufficiently notable to justify an article. There were many more available sources discussing that but I stuck with Yoga Journal as the prime one as it is the major printed journal of yoga, and the article goes into some detail, helpful to a reader. I backed it up with a book from Princeton University Press to confirm notability. The bibliography does list a number of further publications, but since my sense is that it is the Mysore book that is notable, I would support a move to an article about the book rather than the author. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but WP:PROF seems far out of reach. Notability via WP:GNG is more likely, but I didn't see anything good enough in Google news archive. Google books has more hits, but still nothing that covers him in detail, and all about his one book, so WP:BIO1E would seem to apply: the results of his research might be worth including somewhere in Wikipedia but he doesn't inherit their notability. This article is somewhat different from the version that was deleted in April (the "Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace" section is new). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see note below). Added a review from Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.[34] This source[35] (pg. 99) gives some context why the book/author is important, there is a debate within hatha yoga concerning the origins of positions in contemporary yoga. Norman Sjoman is a historical revisionist ("contrarian view"). Regardless if the revisionism has been accepted or not, more important for Wikipedia purposes is if anyone pays attention to the revisionism. Perhaps within the narrow confines of hatha yoga scholarship, it is known, but not seeing much. It's telling that it took two AfD's before anyone was able to figure out why this book/person might be considered important and judge based on something other than blind notability rules. It might be possible for it to pass on WP:AUTHOR #3 if we get 4 or 5 reviews in respectable sources, currently only have two (the two Yoga journal same-issue counts as one + Asiatic Society). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwhatsup has added additional reliable sources that show this theory has received attention in history books published by Princeton, Oxford etc.. the amount of coverage is not ideal but I think it's enough to show this is not fringe theory but one that has received legitimate attention by (some) peers. Change vote to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ previous article was deleted and this one is based on that one but without attributions from original article, this is against policy yes? MarioNovi (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this one ends up being kept, we can undelete the old revisions from the original article to make the attributions clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this done? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Normally the person who closes an AfD has the administrator privileges needed to do this. If it doesn't happen, contact me on my talk page and I can. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, vote is changed. MarioNovi (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't dispute Green Cardamom's reasoning above, and yes MarioNovi some unsourced personal details derived from the earlier article, helpful in understanding how the book came to be written. Green Cardamom exaggerates that it was 2 AfD's - I came to the topic fresh after the first AfD and, even as a person not from the hatha yoga community, it was evident that Sjoman's notability drew from his yoga research. I thus emphasized it. According to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society review the Singleton book is based on it. So we have Princeton University Press and Oxford University Press drawing from Sjoman's research. As such I believe the research is of general notability and a brief description of its content worthy of Wikipedia - whether under it's author's name or otherwise. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you did pick up on why he is notable. I think it's a stretch to say it deserves a standalone article but certainly should find a place somewhere on Wikipedia. I was surprised not to find it mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, but maybe didn't look in the right place, or maybe it's so controversial that previous editors deleted it, or so obscure no one has added it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the existing refs slightly and added the Singleton. Also added mentions in both the Sritattvanidhi and Krishnamacharya articles. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:12, 3 September 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) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination states All reference are either blogs, one companies reviews of her books, or blogs. Still suffers from the same problems as last listing. Not true, a touch incoherent, and misidentifies the subject as female. Perhaps Caffeyw would care to comment further? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think User:Green Cardaman has it right: notability is in a specialized field, but WP includes specialized fields. Only abridged encyclopedias are limited to things well-known to the general public. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 14 September 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) 01:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated the refs etc on Sep 3, since when all comments have been keeps, however grudging, while none of the original deletes have pitched in further. I'd like to hear from them. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry so far down the list I forgot about. It looks like the references are one word mentions where something she said was mentioned. She's also part author of a book, and a paper. I just don't see the wide spread notability or exception by being a professor. Caffeyw (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She? Are we talking about the same person? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sep.3 updates to the refs are insufficient to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly per Green Cardamom's additions and arguments above. There's certainly more to substantiate notability than was presented during the last deletion discussion (during which I opined for deletion). I said during the first discussion that I was happy to consider sources and several editors have now gone to effort to provide some. I initially had a few process concerns which I raised with the re-creator, but the fact that this discussion has been now been re-listed twice suggests the community has had plenty of chances to contribute and be heard on any of those concerns. Stalwart111 10:06, 17 September 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 Dublin Wives. Delete-and-redirect. —Darkwind (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Meagher

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

Individual fails notability criteria required of entertainers: WP:ENT states that to have a wikipedia page: "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Individual fails all three.
There is also an argument under the notable for 1 event WP:1E, as she is only known for 1 event in Ireland - Dublin Wives. In the UK she is barely known for Big Brother.
There is also significant (near total) overlap with the biographies provided on the Dublin Wives.
I had hoped a merge would be the easiest option but the merge was reverted, with the user telling me to go for AFD. Rushton2010 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:1EVENT - Meagher is notable for two events, Dublin Wives and Celebrity Big Brother. In addition, there are numerous reliable sources which have reported on her, which is enough per WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 17:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two appearances in reality TV shows are not the " significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by the notability policy. Also WP:1EVENT, which you quote, supports merger/deletion:

"The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."
"Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident." ::*"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate."

Whether you consider her the "break out star" of Dublin Wives, or just one of the people in the show, the policy supports deletion or merge and redirect to Dublin Wives on every level. But at the end of the day, it doesn't trump the basic notability criteria which she fails on all three counts.--Rushton2010 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 30 August 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) 09:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:GNG. — O'Dea (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dublin Wives. Not notable enough for a separate article. Snappy (talk) 20:36, 15 September 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) 01:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Dublin Wives. Not independently notable, and nothing here that needs merging.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:09, 28 September 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 Newcastle University. A selective merge is the most applicable option per the discussion below. —Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle University spin-out companies

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

just a list of non notable companies (Except one). don't see how such a list is notable. or even worth merging into the main university article. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:L. If more were notable, we could have a list. Even if there were more sources discussing the history of Newcastle uni's involvement with industry there might be scope for an article, but the individual entries aren't notable, and I don't think the topic is notable either. Notable spin-offs could be mentioned on main Newcastle University page but this article doesn't warrant a full merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newcastle University. I think the topic might be notable but the present article is very far from establishing this. So, because it requires improvement rather than deletion, I suggest a redirect without deleting the history. It is a plausible search term. The university's website has a spin-out web page (though the article's link to it is broken) and, since the main article on the university has no reference to spin-out companies, I'll create a very short section with an external link. I have no connection with (or, frankly, interest in) the topic but deletion is an unsuitable approach. I agree that merge of the present material does not seem appropriate. Thincat (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think redirect is of little value as the article name is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd have thought that people with an interest in Newcastle University spin-out companies might search for this. Why the wish to delete it? is there something wrong? Some of the information is verified, and some very likely verifiable. The university web site obviously doesn't advertise the companies that have gone out of business so some some sort of record is useful. If a redirect is objectionable we could, I suppose, do a merge with history merge to Newcastle University and then editorially remove the content thought excessive. Buy why do all this? Is the information embarrassing for some reason that makes it desirable to suppress it? Thincat (talk) 12:34, 2 September 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) 11:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content to Newcastle University#Spin-out companies. TubularWorld (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a journalist who reports on university tech transfer (who also happens to live in Newcastle), pages such as this one are incredibly useful. However, I'd make the point that if Newcastle wants to talk about its spin-out success, then it should talk about its tech transfer process as a whole for this article as opposed to just listing the outcomes. Information like 'what's newcastle's TTO?' 'what's its history?' 'who runs it?' 'what's its investment strategy' and more general information could and should be applied to make this article more useful and broad reaching. That way, it'd provide useful information to academics interested in TT, companies looking to license, prospective students looking into how the university supports spin-outs, and, of course, nosey journalists. GreggBayesBrown (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — GreggBayesBrown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh, also, more detail about the companies and links to their websites (or a note of when they shut down) would also go down well. GreggBayesBrown (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 13 September 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) 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of this subtopic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:59, 17 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnahari Baral

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

1.No credible references. The main reference is the person's own website. It seems the page is created either by himself and/or his relatives. Totally created by the user:laysforme

2.References not enough to really suggest that this person is of any importance neither notable. 3. The only other reference is wikipedia itself- not accepted in wikipedia. 4. Meets G11 of WP:Speedy Deletion criteria. This article is nothing more than an advertising stunt and spam. 5. Meets the following reasons for deletion: -Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion -Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes -Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed -Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -Redundant or otherwise useless templates -Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia SupernovaeIA (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: Here is a valid proof that this article is an advertising stunt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Swapnil_Baral.png The user laysforme is the person's son who has contributed totallly to this article. He created his own page which was recently deleted too.SupernovaeIA (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best sources I could find:

From the article ref section:

Atom, Netra, ed. Geetkar Krishna Hari Baral: Shirjana Ra Samalochana. Kathmandu: Tanneri Prakasan, 2002. Print.
Interview by Bijay Lama. Black and White. Image Television. Kathmandu, Summer 2013. Television.
Interview by Hemanta Bramha. Silpi Ra Saili. AV News Television. Kathmandu, 2011. Television.
Interview by Naresh Bhattarai. Love and Life. Tarai Television. Kathmandu, Winter 2010. Television.
Interview by Sushma KC. Kehi Mitho Baat Garau. Himalaya Televison. Kathmandu, Summer 2012. Television.
"Interview with Dr. Krishnahari Baral." Interview by Bibek Regmi. Aparichit Yatra. AV News Television. Kathmandu, Winter 2010. Television.

Dont think all these are able to suggest the person is notable?Cant find any of these interviews online either.SupernovaeIA (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found on Google:

[36], endorsement for Barel's book by the President of Nepal.
[37], media interview.
[38], "Krishnahari Baral is one of the most successful contemporary lyricists of Nepal"
[39], summary of statements about Baral
[40] "lyrics by veterans like .. Krishna Hari Baral"
[41] "one of the most popular lyricists in the realm of Nepali song"
[42] "..renowned lyricist Dr. Krishna Hari Baral.."

Suspect there is more in foreign-language sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG, noted Nepali language lyricist. Sourcing for Nepal and India is very challenging (see WP:INDAFD). More so finding sources for an artist working in the Nepali language (no Latin characters), compounded by no option for Google Translate. Yet we have all these available English sources praising, including an endorsement from the President of Nepal. It's plenty considering the difficulties. It would probably do more harm than good to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:36, 4 September 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) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor of Nepali at what I think is the main Nepalese university? Certainly notable, by common sense. The refs above about the importance of his poetry are sufficient to show notability there also DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure? Being a professor does not pass the WP:Notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.158.217 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 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) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The acclaim he has received in reliable sources as a Nepali lyricist is enough to make him notable, and when you add that he is a professor of Nepali at Nepal's best university, a literary critic, a prize-winning poet and a textbook author, I conclude that the article should be kept. That being said, the current version has quite a bit of puffery, and should br rewritten from the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 16 September 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. A borderline case - multiple reliable sources APPEAR to exist. No consensus either way (non-admin closure) ES &L 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lagassé

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

A minor NDP politician. Ran last in the 1989 leadership race and 5th in BC riding in the last federal election. The article has been largely written by User:Rlagasse, an obvious conflict of interest. No other notable features. Recommend Redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election. Suttungr (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Ref WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say keep. The article is undoubtedly in need of revision, but Lagassé did receive extensive media coverage when he ran for the federal NDP leadership, so many years ago. CJCurrie (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If press coverage during an election were the criteria, every political candidate would be considered notable. That's why we created special rules for politicians. See WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed WP:POLITICIAN, and it's my belief that Lagassé fulfills the criterion of having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I agree that simply receiving "press coverage" isn't sufficient grounds for notability; this particular coverage, however, was both national and extensive (albeit that it's not very well reflected in the current version of the article). CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National and extensive coverage? Before I voted delete I checked the big commercial databases: Gale, ProQuest, EBSCO, JSTOR - they all came up empty. These databases are quite extensive archiving 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals, magazines etc.. in the US and Canada going back 30 years or more. Happy to be proven wrong of course. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest (which includes many Canadian papers) gives me 294 hits (292 articles and 2 books) for "Roger Lagasse", while Factiva gives me 111. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which ProQuest your searching but I'm still coming up empty. Why not cite some major newspaper articles that you believe are relevant. I will verify by searching on the newspaper website, or submit a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to log off for the night, but I'll (probably) be able to add some sources to the article tomorrow. Can I request that people keep an open mind until then? CJCurrie (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Update I've added sources from Factiva now. I recognize that Lagassé was never in the upper echelons of notability, even in 1989, and I grant that this is something of a borderline case ... but I still think he's received enough media coverage to justify retention of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I was able to verify on the Toronto Star website that there are numerous articles from the year 1989. Can't view the articles without a sub but they do show the index. My only comment would be these all seem related to his political campaign which is normal for anyone running for office. I'd really like to see some notability beyond his campaign bids since the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 is that we don't consider notable people who ran for office that did not win. There are some more recent articles there but unable to view what they say in terms of subject matter and depth of coverage of Roger Lagassé. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the article already follows the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 as it stands. Defeated candidates aren't automatically considered notable, but in this case the subject did receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Lagassé was a candidate for a national leadership position and, as such, received coverage in national media outlets over a period of several months. Its true that he didn't receive much in the way of intensive coverage, but I'd argue that such coverage as he did receive was significant (albeit, as I say, that it's close to the borderline in this case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the coverage "significant"? Read Anne Delong's comment below. It sounds like the coverage was about a horse in the back of the pack who never had a chance of winning. Lots of people run for high office who never have a chance, sometimes they get human interest stories, but it's not significant on its own to warrant an Encyclopedia article, unless the coverage really is intensive. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there will always be some disagreement as to what constitutes "significant" coverage. I've already noted that the coverage Lagassé received during the leadership contest was national and extensive, but not intensive. Said coverage certainly made him a nationally known figure, albeit only for a short period of time. My view is that this is enough to justify the continued existence of the article (even though, as I've already mentioned, it's a borderline case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:21, 17 September 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) 08:12, 7 September 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) 01:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the Toronto Star back issues. In most of the many articles in 1989 he is just mentioned as an also ran candidate. At most there is a sentence or two here and there. However, because there are so many articles about the candidates, the paper does confirm many of the facts in the article: That he was a fringe candidate, a school teacher, was the only bilingual candidate, had never held office, had some regional support but no real chance of winning, objected to a debate being held in a luxury hotel, complained about his fellow candidates' "Tory bashing", showed up to a debate in his van and asked if anyone could put him up for the night, and received 53 votes at the leadership convention. There are two other major newspapers in Toronto to which I don't have access. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By using a proper accent in the search engine, I found a number of references, including THIS and THIS, and someone seems to have written a short book about him HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These sources are almost worthless. The first is a bare mention, the second is a blog to which anybody may contribute, the third appears to be a vanity press. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

There are five references in the first book; four are bare mentions, the fifth tells about a vote at the convention to cover his election deposit. The second is an article mostly about him written in a publication with an editor, two publishers and two reporters, and was written by the editor, not a blogger. A small note in the corner of the book cover reveals that it is largely created from Wikipedia articles, so thumbs down on that source. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all leadership candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?. Delete failed politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 24 September 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. No quorum - NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is All Around (EP)

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

I am nominating a group of eps by the one artist. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. The only references are the artist own site, soundcloud, bandcamp, a shop. None independent reliable sources. The external links are just linkspam. Others nominated are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

included on 3 September. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 28 August 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) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that the artist is clearly notable, I have to wonder whether deleting all these related articles is the best approach. If we have a glut of articles on the releases without much more content than basic details and tracklisting, bringing them all together in a fairly detailed discography would probably be the best approach. --Michig (talk) 09:13, 7 September 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) 01:11, 16 September 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 Nick Nevern . Mojo Hand (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooligan Factory(film)

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL this is a plan, not a movie. Error 404 at even IMDB. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no longer a Error 404 Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: the IMDb error came from someone putting it into the template incorrectly. I've fixed that, although I have no comment about notability at this time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. GregJackP Boomer! 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Time to use some Google-fu. Keep or at least Incubate for a few weeks, as deletion is not required for a completed and soon-to-be-released film that is spoken of in multiple reliable sources. And by the way... let's fix the article title while we're at it. Under WP:NCF we do not in this instance require the disambig "(film)".. much less having it squished up against the title (thus confusing the findsources set up by the AFD template). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to Nick Nevern with history. There's just enough here to where it might be keepable as a weak keep, but I'm more leaning towards redirecting this to the director's page with history. He's notable enough and we can always redirect to the director's article and un-redirect when/if more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 29 August 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems likely that this will get more coverage closer to (and after) release. Merging to the Nick Nevern article might be more appropriate. If this was shelved now and didn't receive any more coverage would it be worth an article? Probably not, but we can revisit it in a few months if kept. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 7 September 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) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director Nick Nevern until sources are available to confirm this film's release or at least impending release. If the film is indeed notable, the redirect can be undone and the page restored at the appropriate time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 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. Fully recognizing nom's concerns, NBAND requires some "leniency" for other countrys sometimes - and the pre-internet age of this band appears to make ref's challenging. However, consensus appears to keep - regardless of provocative statements by IP (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introvoys

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

I'm kind of surprised to find an article on a band that has been on Wikipedia since 2006 without a single source attached. I just did a bit of a search and did not come up with anything that looked like a reliable source describing this band in any detail. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, did you ever come across this link: http://216.246.97.58/~adobo/l-a-chika-introvoys/ - this TV show is part of an international network called TFC. If this is indeed a reliable source, then you would have to accept it (Introvoys) as a notable article - one that is linked to topics such as "Chot Ulep", "Raincrowd", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4D80:A6:F5B5:EA9B:15B0:2A38 (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off I think it likely that you are User:Raincrowd and you are evading your block. Secondly, get over yourself. The fact that it is "linked" to you is not an indication of notability, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to tell the whole world how awesome you are. There's a place for that, it's called facebook. Look into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying "Introvoys" IS "notable"? You're not "evading" this issue, are you? 2601:C:4D80:A6:94C:3648:79F9:EF75 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

Keep. Find sources --> News link above shows plenty of potential sources. –H T D 09:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to make at least one specific example? That would really help in evaluating the strength of your argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a pity all of the Google News links above are dead (lol), since this band's heyday was before the internet. Although there's one reference that is usable immediately below. It says "One of the 90’s most prolific Filipino rock bands." If that doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, I dunno know what is. –H T D 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reference: http://www.balita.com/introvoys-to-rock-noypitz-in-one-night-for-a-cause/ 2601:C:4D80:A6:94C:3648:79F9:EF75 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Chot Ulep[reply]

References added. 64.134.66.95 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the band won quadruple platinum. If we can get a cite for this, this will be saved. When were they awarded? This was in 1995, so if we can pinpoint a month, I can perhaps a newspaper article from a the Google Newspaper archive. –H T D 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you think this edit constitutes adding references that you need to review what is and is not a reference, and further what is and is not a free image per policy on commons. Screenshots of copyrighted material are not references, they are a mess that now needs to be cleaned up. See WP:REF and WP:RS for information on sourcing an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are piss poor (actually the article too) but you (the anon) can add newspaper articles as references even if they don't exist online. The Balita one is a saver and can be used. –H T D 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band was indeed notable during the late 80s. However, being of pre-Web fame, finding reliable sources is a bitch; I still have old copies of 1980s - 1990s Jingle music magazines that may yield references about the group. Will plug it in when I find those.— •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Gonzales has written up three of their releases at allmusic [43][44][45] (says "1994's big hit, 'Line to Heaven'..."). The google books results show they were familiar to Maximum Rocknroll and some Filipino sources. I'm satisfied they are notable, though from a predominately offline time & place. 78.19.91.239 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band is notable enough to be in Wikipedia but needs to be improved.Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in several sources, albeit pre-internet ones. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:06, 28 September 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) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aajavan

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

Non-notable film. 0 hits on Google News as well. buff bills 7701 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. It is unclear if this film is even in production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per having no coverage under this title and thus failing WP:NFF. Being polite, the best one might state is this is one is way TOO SOON. If an alternate spelling bring results, I can reconsider. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As TOO SOON. Amala and Vijay are big so it will be recreated in due time if the movie is going to be made.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources, fails WP:NFF. Was very recently [46] as "(G2: Test page: false film, made up news)". PamD 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no sources for this movie. -- L o g X 17:21, 19 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Commonwealth Beauty Pageant

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

Just 15k Google hits. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, full nomination should have read: "Just 15k Google hits makes clear that it is not an important pageant. No indication found how old this pageant is and how many editions took place. Article has no proper sourcing to prove that it is notable. Fails WP:GNG." The Banner talk 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't agree that "only 15k ghits" is a valid reason for deletion, I do agree that there does not appear to be any significant independent coverage of this pageant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, full nomination should have read: "Just 15k Google hits makes clear that it is not an important pageant. No indication found how old this pageant is and how many editions took place. Article has no proper sourcing to prove that it is notable. Fails WP:GNG." The Banner talk 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pageant's website can be visited at www.misscommonwealth.org. The pageant has been running since 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.2.142 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Visit also www.ciccetss.org for ALL the previous winners![reply]

Do you have any independent, reliable sources? The Banner talk 01:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find a few minor mentions (some of which suggest that the pageant was renamed to "Miss Global International"). I can't find any evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:51, 29 September 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) 00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit

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

Apparent WP:HOAX. The reference Raymond Keene 2002 makes no mention of Hopkins and the book by Dennis McHale doesn't exist in any library search. No mention of Hopkins Gambit in any authoritative references. Created by the same sock/meat puppets responsible for Richard Hopkins (chess player). See related AFD for other evidence. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I know there have been some non-WP:GNG chess openings articles that have went AfD, but is this the first example of a chess openings article *hoax* on the en.WP? Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator. Should be listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. @Ihardlythinkso: the hoaxes page shows this is not the first one. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. (Looks like the recently AfD'd Rombaua Trap is the only other one then, if am reading it right.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete it for sure, but it's almost a misnomer to call it a complete hoax. I mean the moves themselves do exist, and the variations listed probably are the best continuations (though I am skeptical of g5). All you have to do really is get rid of the parts mentioning Hopkins and you transform a hoax article into simply a non-notable one. (What should we call this variation now? The formerly named Hopkins Gambit??) 11kowrom 06:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't any name other than "Ruy Lopez, Morphy Defence, 5.c4". Radkevic–Sumilin, USSR 1937 seems to be the only game resource. The analysis in the article has no ref source so it's reasonable to assume it is WP:OR which would make the article less than non-notable but unverifiable as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 19 September 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 Hidden Treasures (EP). Consensus is to merge (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Hell (song)

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

The song looks more like a fan-cruft than a useful article. I believe it isn't a notable song and it doesn't have the potential to be anything more than a stub. In it's current state, the article hasn't got any references nor it has some retrieved information. I think that's more than enough to ask for deletion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ confirmed as appearing in both an EP by Megadeth (source) and on the soundtrack to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (source). AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appearing on a release by Megadeth doesn't make a song notable. There are no sources on the Internet that can help in expanding the article. In it's present condition it's nothing more than an original research filled with useless information.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's crap!" is not a reason to delete an article. Did you check offline sources that can help expand the article, such as back issues of Billboard, Rolling Stone, Q or Kerrang! that might have reviewed the Bill & Ted soundtrack? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being a "crap", the article doesn't have the potential to be anything more than that. If "99 Ways" is notable song (received Grammy nomination) this surely isn't. Making appearance on a Megadeth album (the band has more than 200 songs) and on a movie soundtrack (which has 20 songs and just 4 of them have articles) doesn't make it notable.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:NSONG, it means it should be redirected, not deleted vis "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article". Which article would you suggest redirecting to? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hidden Treasures (EP) is the best solution because that's where the song is placed. And can't a redirect be made for the other nominee?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I already made a redirect.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with Merge and redirect to Hidden Treasures (EP) as it measures the Bill & Ted appearance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 17 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

99 Ways to Die (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

The same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go to Hell (song).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It probably doesn't meet the GNG, but, unlike the other song you mentioned, it was nominated for a Grammy Award. That, surely, makes a song notable. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Milburn, previous AfD, and via a pay per view newspaper source of your choice. A Grammy for "best metal performance" is a significant enough award for the song to be considered notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a strong argument. However, not all songs nominated in that category have articles of their own. Apart from that, there aren't good reasons why to keep it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because the encyclopedia is incomplete, you think we should delete more of it? Well done, you've found some gaps in our coverage- get researching! J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, unsourced and speculative material has the possibility to be challenged and removed. I'm suggesting to blank the page until some adequate sources are found and added. No information is better than false information.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 hits on Nexis for Megadeth "99 Ways to Die". These include criticism for its violent content, praise/analysis of its anti-gun message, and there's even a review of the video: Gobby, Jennifer (5 December 1993). "Videos". The Gazette. p. F5. The video's given a grade A, and the author offers analysis of how it links guns with death. This song is definitely notable, and nothing in the article currently seems unverifiable. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this song for deletion six years ago. In that period the article hasn't been improved one bit. I think the situation will be same after another six years (and maybe more). The article simply can't go further than C-class. From the quick Google research I did I guarantee that 100%. And by the way, I don't see how can you verify the live performances that are listed in the article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While some of us like to improve articles at AfD to "stick it to the deletionists" ( see University of Michigan Men's Glee Club), Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and nobody is required to fix anything, as long as it could be fixed by someone. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"From the quick Google research I did I guarantee that 100%". I think that speaks for itself. There's more to research than "a quick Google search". Taking a look on Google Books reveals that the song charted on one of Billboard's charts, it's been mentioned in multiple academic texts and even Time magazine. Google Scholar throws up some foreign language sources- may be something, may not be, I can't tell for sure. There are also plenty of books out there about Megadeth- perhaps some of them will contain material. I've already mentioned the many hits on Nexis- perhaps there are more on other archivers (HighBeam, for instance). The fact this one was Grammy-nominated suggests that they probably will be. Certainly, there's likely to be stuff from the old metal magazines; there were dozens around in the '90s. This is a song from pre-Internet days; of course your "quick Google search" doesn't find much. I'm not completely opposed to a merge (which is why my keep remains a weak one) but I am slightly alarmed at your bold assertions. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since I'm new to this process, I didn't expressed myself quite correct. I though deleting and redirecting were the same thing. I see that those infos (Grammy nominee and soundtrack appearance) are also mentioned in the Hidden Treasures (EP) article. So this is basically same information at two different places.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you accept merging the song with the EP article?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to sourced Grammy nomination. Holdek (talk) 12:08, 23 September 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.