Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 June >

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. Sandstein 05:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Avenue

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability and the article has not been edited since its creation over a year ago. A residential street that is less than half a mile long (this can be proven by traveling through this street on Google Maps) certainly does not merit a Wikipedia article and it is definitely not named after Justin Bieber or Justin Timberlake. While there is an entrance to the street from an SIR station, that station is meant to serve the entire neighborhood it is named after, not just one particular street. Searching "Justin Avenue" on Google does not come up with anything significant about the street, just real estate and property information. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also short, residential streets with little to no significance to the area it is in:

(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)

Take note that there are other streets around the world that have the same names as the ones in this AfD, so do not mistake them for these if you do a search on their notability. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete the three nominated and add a fourth. Mere existence is not enough to warrant inclusion, and these fail WP:GNG at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who would say that mere existence is sufficient for inclusion, as long as it can be documented. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They might, but WP:GNG is the basic guideline we use to determine notability, and that's the normal bar for inclusion around here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that public roads can pretty much be ~~assumed~~ expected to pass WP:GNG. There are reasons other than GNG why we don't list more of them. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Public roads down to the state road level are assumed to pass WP:GNG. County roads and down are not; WP:OUTCOMES for county roads is to merge to by-county lists, but for unnumbered streets, it's WP:GNG or bust. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, and it says, "Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." WP:GNG is a part of WP:N, which says that, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

I didn't mean to suggest that passing WP:GNG can be asserted without evidence in some cases, which seems to be the previous point, and I have changed the word from "assumed" to "expected". I meant that for public roads, WP:GNG wp:notability can be expected to exist due to sources including maps. This says nothing about outcomes. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Justin Avenue may have some sourcing with WP:OR, what kind of source is going to document that a street has "a few quiet residential blocks". Also, there is a dead link that has not been marked, have the people that have commented above looked at the sources available in the article before commenting? Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The No Original Research policy may be of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are enough problems in discussing Justin Avenue without three additional deletion discussions here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: No case for them being notable, and keeping them would open the door to articles on thousands of insignificant streets. p b p 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as copyvio. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl's Wood Fired Grill

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

No reliable third party sources support the notability of this restaurant. Ghits are mostly to reviews. Content is copied from the restaurant's web site. Author is a SPA account. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This restaurant hasn't received enough reliable coverage to warrant an article and the reviews I'm finding are to non-usable foodie blogs through Blogger, Wordpress, and the like. (In other words, reviews that can't count towards notability.) This just doesn't have the coverage to pass notability guidelines and that it's a copyvio off the company's website is a double whammy.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Creed

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

No strong evidence of notability. Article mentions only a minor part in the Harry Potter series. IMDB (not a good source anyway) only lists several uncredited and minor parts. He seems more like an extra than an actor. Dmol (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if there were reliable sources for all these "credits", I still don't think it would be sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Ubelowme (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total lack of reliable sources. Not notable just on the face of it: this is not Extraspedia. DreamGuy (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:GNG and even if provided sources, notability is still in question. →TSU ^tp* 20:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The luckiest man in Iraq

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

NOT and NOTNEWS Canoe1967 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually nominate this article. I just changed the tag to one that we can discuss.
For NOT there are many. Click the news, books, scholar, and JSTOR (if you have an account) above.
This may be the first time a 'smart bomb' video was widely aired to the public. If not it is the most notable.
NOTNEWS - It was news at the time, but I think it was a very memorable event. It is still discussed decades later and if we can get more detail it would be nice for readers to access RS sources on the event. The article is not about a BLP, or the video, but the event and circumstances surrounding it. The article name seems to be the most common usage of that event.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is still only one incident. There is so little to say about it that it doesn't need its own article. The information could be given in Smart bomb, if that's what makes it notable. Borock (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a one-off comment. Yes, sources at the time mentioned it. However, all of the sources discussing it date from one day in 1991 (we do have an undiscussed use of the clip in 1997). There is no indication of lasting significance. Additionally, this permanent stub (two sentences), according to the talk page, strives to be a WP:BLP1E. Notwithstanding potential speculation about the kind of bomb used, the is person "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not news. It was one event in 1991 and the person is anonymous. It doesn't merit a wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video, as the article creater removed a proposed deletion and raised this AfD it could be considered an CSD G7 Author requests deletion as well! MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge - Merge 1 sentence and references to Media coverage of the Gulf War (or maybe Gulf War). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'. It will fit as the existing two sentences in a few articles. Media coverage of the Gulf War, Laser-guided bomb, Gulf War air campaign, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., Grumman A-6 Intruder, GBU-10 Paveway II etc, etc. That is why I made it as a standalone article to use wikilinks with. I will just move it back to my user space for now until I can find more sources on more detail. It seems that no one here wants to help improve it, just delete it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it to Media coverage of the Gulf War as Fnlayson suggested. Otto Tanaka (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - article was moved to userspace User:Canoe1967/The luckiest man in Iraq 2 by Canoe1967 and the residual redirect has been deleted under G7. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venaculas

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

A band that doesn't seem to pass any of the requirments of WP:NBAND. At first, the band's credentials may seem to pass the GNG, but upon actually looking into it, I find most of it suspect. To begin with, I can not find a single reliable source to back any of these claims up at all. The only time I see this band mentioned at all are either personal sites, mirrors of this article, or the bands own press releases. Many of the other claims to notability mentioned in the article also just don't pan out. It says how they were put into rotation on multiple radio stations. However, these are all local stations, and WP:NBAND states that they must be put on rotation at a national level. They claim to have been in the soundtrack for a movie, but this movie was a completely unnotable film. The article was nominated for deletion once previously, however the nominator almost immediately withdrew the nomination before any sort of consensus could be reached. Since I feel that the nomination has merit, I went ahead and re-nominated it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are not independent WP:RS and the listed web links are connected to this band in some way. --Artene50 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reliable sources covering this band in significant detail. I was unable to get the Omaha City Weekly article from the references to load, but regardless, one article in a local weekly paper isn't sufficient to establish notability. I also note that a chunk of the article is identical to this band profile. I don't know who copied who, but the wording is highly promotional, as is the entire article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:RS. Many things are unsourced and I cant find enough sources online. →TSU ^tp* 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Lemley

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

Questionable notability, relies on the "Indiana Artisan" awards, which I wouldn't consider notable, for a source, definitely needs better sources for a BLP, borderline advertising at times. Specs112 t c 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I was making a page for a chef. This article is not biased and has plenty of credible sources, where I got the information from. I followed the guidlines, using well known sources. Please do not delete my page. I would like help to know what I have done wrong. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartindale (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 June 2012 Preceding comment by author transcluded from Talk:Alexa Lemley.
Delete, per nominator. Insufficient coverage to establish notability; the cited award was presented by a non-notable publication so is itself non-notable. The intimate picture of the subject and her partner was uploaded by the article creator and cited as their own work, so there is an apparrent connection and conflict of interest. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only reliable source that seems to confer notability is the "Indiana Artisan" awards piece. I looked closely at that and they've given it out 175 times in two years, which seems a bit … less than perfectly notable to me. You can receive this award for making fudge and, like the subject, marshmallows; not really within my personal definition of "artisan". On the other hand, this award is juried -- although I was unable to discern exactly who's on the juries. From the website, the "Benefits" of this award are all about the marketing of local products and so I have to think that this is more advertising than anything else. The article states that having been chosen as an "Artist in Residence" at the Indiana State Museum -- for being a chef? -- is "a chance to promote her locally based products", without any other mention of why this designation was given or to how many people, and it's stated that this is based on the "Indiana Artisan" status. Also as noted above there is a strong flavour of self-promotion; her stated ambition is "Global domination of the gourmet candy market," and this seems like a step along the way. All things considered, I think this is yet another attempt to market this person's food products. No doubt they are excellent, but I suggest she is not yet sufficiently notable for Wikipedia; perhaps if there were some reliable sources of arm's-length third-party expert opinion that were unambiguously not connected with the promotion of local businesses and that were outside her home area. Ubelowme (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure she's a nice enough person, but personal pages for some minor local celebrity (which may even be overstating things) is not what this site is for. See WP:NOT. You need to be famous before getting an article here, not create an article here as a step to try to become famous. DreamGuy (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this point, I don't see wikipedia's inclusion guidelines being met. The best source I could find was this Indy Star article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking like it's getting ready to snow. Sources found are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Zad68 19:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:GNG. Many facts are unsourced and others are sourced poorly. The article also doesn't seem to have any notability. →TSU ^tp* 20:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Corish

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

This is kind of a strange one. Initially, I nominated it for Deletion based on the fact that there is no indication that this person is notable at all. The article claims that he was a member of Funkadelic, however, I was able to find absolutely nothing to support this at all. The only mention of this individual is in this articles, and mirrors of this article. However, upon attempting to create the AFD, I found that this was apparantly already nominated for deletion years ago here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Corish. It seems it was decided to delete it then, but I'm not sure what happened after that. Neither the Talk page for the article nor the article history tells me if it was later undeleted, or if it just never got done, but since its been so many years, I figured I would go ahead and finish the process of nominating it so we can get a new consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After doing a bit more digging, it seems that based on the dates, the article was deleted as it was supposed to have been, but was then re-created shortly afterwards and just wasn't caught the second time. So yeah, this should definitely be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and salt so we don't have to go through this again. I'm not seeing any reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Oxley

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

Played in 3 major league games and never got a hit. No real coverage other than comprehensive reference books. Fails the general notability guideline. Mechanical listings in reference books do not establish notability. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly meets standards met in WP:WPBB/N, Specifically #2: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" -- as a player, subject played for the New York Gothams (now called the San Francisco Giants) for at least three games.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as there are reliable third-party sources, appearing in a Major League game is firmly established notability, even 100+ years on. DarkAudit (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our current standards make clear that his article belongs here, and the current practice makes sense. Completeness is a virtue. People looking for information on major league baseball expect, reasonably, that they will be able to find verifiable information here about everyone who has played in a major league game. We have such verifiable information for Henry Oxley. There is even the interesting detail that he is one of only three players from PEI in major league history. There is no good reason to delete this, and to do so does damage to Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of baseball. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of information can be preserved by being merged into larger articles that contain an entire roster. This is what we did with non-notable pokemon, and what is ongoing with non-notable asteroids. Hundreds of thousands of tiny articles on non-notable sports players is an unsustainable situation, that will eventually have to be addressed. Gigs (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll bite excactly how is it "unsustainable" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I have a unique perspective since I spent many hours cleaning up the unsourced BLP backlog, which was laden with non-notable and non-deletable sports benchwarmers. Every additional article is additional editorial workload. Every additional article is another chance for libel and slander to slip through the cracks, and get us sued, or for vandalism to linger, making us look bad. Fewer articles are easier to maintain and watch. Throughout our history we have had several large classes of articles merged down for maintainability and notability reasons. Pokemon, fictional elements, asteroids, etc. It is only a matter of time until the same thing happens to sports people articles. Maybe it will take a lawsuit or a public embarrassment, but I would hope that the people active in editing sports articles would address the issue sooner than that. Gigs (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes each article requires more effort to maintain. But there's a great distance between "extra work" and "unsustainable" on Wikipedia. The comments about libel or slander don't really apply here--aside from having quality content, it's a baseball player from 1884. But if the purpose is to avoid a lawsuit, then just shut down Wikipeida.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per meeting WP:BASE/N. Major league player. Penale52 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Played in MLB. Nuff said. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not enough. The subject-specific notability guidelines do not absolve articles indefinitely from meeting the general notability guideline. Gigs (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The new sources provided show why it is, in fact, enough. All of these people have sourcing. In many cases, it simply isn't available online. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Those coming and citing NSPORTS needs to recognize that notability by playing in a professional league is a presumption, and in certain exceptions, like this one, can be challenged if no sources ever come about to expand the article in more detail. We're not a who's who , we're an encyclopedia. This is a clear cut case where plenty of time has elapsed for sources to come out (100+ years) and yet there doesn't appear to be any beyond primary sourcing on the few games played. This has no potential to develop further and ergo is not an appropriate article on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with newfound sources, but a reminder to all those that argue "Keep"/"Speedy Keep" that the criteria in NSPORTS are only presumptions and can be challenged fairly in cases like this. Those criteria are not guarantees for retention in exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only things that we can verify about this individual involve his birth, death and that he played three games of professional baseball. The article certainly fails the general notability guideline, and while it may technically pass NSPORTS, let's invoke common sense here. If we cannot report any additional verifiable information about this individual, it's pointless to keep a sub-stub like this around. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. Stub articles are a valuable part of any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included. And in this case, it leaves room for the article to be improved when more information is discovered by editors. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no deadline, but after five years in such a state, it is completely reasonable to ask for some demonstration of GNG-compliance. I absolutely agree that stub articles are useful to Wikipedia, but this one shows no sign at all of being expandable. It's time to delete this. Jogurney (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please Pick one either there is no deadline, or the deadline is five years. I don't personally care which position you take, but you cannot logically defend both. By the way, the article has expanded significantly in the past few days.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, no need for false dichotomies here. We don't have a strict deadline, but five years is plenty to show GNG-compliance. This article has been expanded in the past few days, but only with the most trivial of coverage. It clearly fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Clearly fails GNG?" On what basis? Did you check century old offline and out of print sources? One can perhaps conclude that "it hasn't been demostrated to meet GNG" but in the absence of such a search it can hardly be said to clearly fail GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        My basis for saying the article clearly fails the GNG is I read the citations and found a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. What we have is a few entries in statistics databases (trivial, routine), some census records (trivial, routine) and two mentions in books that are completely trivial. I would like to understand why you think that shows GNG compliance. I don't see the point in arguing about sources that are not cited and don't exist. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        GNG is based on all reliable sources, whether cited in the article or not. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is why I, and others, searched for available sources before voting (there is no point talking about potential coverage in reliable sources that may or may not exist). It's been five years since this article was created - plenty of time to demonstrate GNG compliance. Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's not reasonable at all. It's actually contrary to policies/guidelines to do so. See WP:GTD: "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Since Gigs plainly did not do this, it's a bad nomination. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is absolutely no obligation to search for sources before nominating something. It's a good idea to do so, to avoid wasting everyone's time, and I did do a cursory search, and came up with pretty much nothing, which is what everyone else seems to be coming up with. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it's reasonable to ask whether this article can satisfy the GNG after five years without any effort to demonstrate GNG-compliance. My own searches on this individual produced nothing more than what it currently cited in the article - which is nowhere close to satisfying the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually there is, WP:BEFORE. You are expected to make a good faith search before nominating. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. --KarlB (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearl passes WP:WPBB/N and likely to pass WP:GNG. It appears that a talk page posting made by the nominator has drawn the recent delete voters here to make a point. Not sure if the recent delete voters have looked for other sources or not. I did a quick google search and found two books at Google books that discuss his career. With players from the 19th Century, much of the source material is not available on-line. As one of the first Canadians to pay MLB, I expect there to even more information out there than can be located through a quick google search. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please AGF; my participation in this discussion is not to make a point. I did look for online sources and found nothing except what was already cited on the article page (plus some similar statistics database entries like SI.com). I also found no books covering this person (and be wary of Wikipedia mirrors that are posted at Google Books). That said, if you have some additional sources that show the article satisfies the GNG, I'm happy to change my vote. Jogurney (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I do assume good faith, but the speed with which three delete votes showed up after the nominator posted elsewhere was striking. I have now added a number of additional sources and information. Will look for more later. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my and their credit, I assumed if anything the watchers of the sports notability talk page would be more biased toward keep than delete. It was not intended to solicit votes one way or the other, but to rather point out the way that the SNGs are often (ab)used, as part of an ongoing conversation I have been having with the NSPORTs talk page participants. Maybe I should have waited until the AfD closed to avoid turning this AfD into a proxy for the larger debate. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment While I admire the determination to add census records, I don't think that helps the case. Clearly, this guy existed. The question is, is he notable? The guideline states that WP:WPBB/N gives presumed notability, but sometimes in cases like this, you have to test whether notability does exist. The sources so far seem to be only trivial mentions. I also looked for sources, and didn't find anything already mentioned in the article --KarlB (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just census records. He's discussed in two books by baseball historian Peter Morris. He played for two MLB teams and also had a career in the minors. For a 19th Century ball player (where source material is not readily accessible on line), that's pretty darn good. Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not critiquing the census records and they are useful if the article is kept. The question is, what about significant coverage of the subject (vs just mentioning his name) or telling one story about the green mountains quip? --KarlB (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time a player with minimal (but greater than zero) MLB experience is brought to AfD, the discussion is closed as keep. I wish I had a full record of it, but it seems to happen at least once a quarter, if not once every other month. Significant coverage exists for all of these individuals, though it is not necessarily easily accessible to those of us in the internet generation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per established consensus. It is reasonable that readers that are fans of baseball in general and in this case, the Giants, would want to look for information on players from the teams early days and we should provide that service with as much information as we can locate about these players. Spanneraol (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASE/N with room to spare. Article is adequately sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BASE/N. There is probably coverage for the person in harder to access sources if people really wanted to go hunting which would demonstrate WP:GNG more clearly. --LauraHale (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per established consensus about what constitutes notability at WP:Baseball and WP:Nsports. Patken4 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is the problem; everyone is saying basically the same thing - there are sources, we just need to find them. If that is the case, then why haven't they come to light after 5 years? There are very few other articles that we keep in the hope that new sources will come to light; instead, the standard elsewhere is, delete, with no prejudice to recreation. I think at this point, the onus should be on those defending this article to find *real* sources. Perhaps the guideline should be changed to say, if an article is challenged, you have X months to demonstrate significant coverage; if it can't be found, the article is deleted, and can be userfied/etc with no prejudice to recreation - but keeping thousands of stubs out there in the hope that someone will do the research and bring new facts to light is silly. This article for example - there are now lots of sources in this article, but NO significant coverage - just census records, grave sites, and a mention in 2 books. That does not make WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Also per @Spanneraol's comment above, I must disagree; there are people who are researching their minor league teams as well, or their high school teams, or any number of other things, but just because someone is looking for it doesn't mean wikipedia should have it. It would be great if someone just created sportsopedia, that would accept articles on any sport, any sport player, any coach, any game - then all of the sports stuff could go there and we wouldn't have to have these debates here.--KarlB (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Karl. Your aspiration for "all of the sports stuff" to just go away (to sportopedia or elsewhere) seems to reflect a view that sports are less worthy than other topics. Millions of people the world over disagree and much prefer to devote their attention to sports than such things as celebrities, hedge fund managers, and politicos. The beauty of Wikipedia is that there's room for all areas of interest, provided a basic level of notability is met, which it is here. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, that wasn't worded well. Of course sports are worthy of note in wikipedia; but there are lots of things about sports that would never be accepted at wikipedia, but that sports people would love to have; the same holds for star wars and wookiepedia; think about it - if you're a completionist, you'd want a full record for every player, every game they played, how many points they scored; etc - a sportsopedia could be incredibly rich in detail for those who want a complete picture. But that's not wikipedia. Some sports articles belong in wikipedia, but they should follow the same notability guidelines. I think those who are completionists, and would like an article about every baseball player that ever lived, they are working on the wrong wiki - which was why I thought it would be great if something different could be created for sports. (I note baseball wikia, but seems poorly populated). And, in this particular case, I think we are very far from GNG. A few passing mentions does not make GNG.--KarlB (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Nobody here is suggesting that there should be an article on every baseball player or every game. Those who have played MLB, however, are the cream of the cream the top .00001 percent of the sport. Cbl62 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

look at this quote from above: "Completeness is a virtue. People looking for information on major league baseball expect, reasonably, that they will be able to find verifiable information here about everyone who has played in a major league game." Why can't you just replace that with minor league baseball - why shouldn't wikipedia provide information about *those* players? Or what about college football? Or highschool basketball, etc? My point is, wikipedia is a poor source if you want complete information; it is a great source if you want notable information and articles. Even if these guys are at the top of their game, if no-one ever wrote an article about them, why should we keep it? Completionism is not a goal of wikipedia. Having a full roster is not a goal of wikipedia.--KarlB (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "because the consensus is to not do that" -- at least for a short answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for saying "no-one ever wrote an article about" Oxley? Have you looked up every 19th century newspaper or sports periodical that may have covered him? Or are you basing it just on what you found on the internet or in whatever limited 19th century periodicals may be covered in the local library? Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - but again, this standard is not applied to any other wikipedia articles. The presumption here is being challenged, and that presumption has not been answered. If more research turns up, then the article can be recreated - but why should the article stand based on an (unproven) assumption? --KarlB (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't provided a valid basis for challenging the presumption. Merely saying "I challenge the presumption" without giving any basis for an assersion that this particular subject would not meet GNG is hardly adequate when that presumption is as much a guideline as the presumption in GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should the article stand based on an (unproven) assumption?" Because the presumption in the relevant notability guideline has been proven. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:WPBB/N Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Could I ask a question of those voting - does anyone think that this article, and the sources provided, currently passes WP:GNG?

Yes. I do. Spanneraol (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do I.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't you making an argument based on WP:GNG? And, if you are arguing based on GNG, where are the sources that provide significant coverage? I only see a mention in two books. Census/etc is not relevant for notability.--KarlB (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need at this point, but when I have more time I can start banging the horse carcass with a rod.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as most people in the baseball WikiProject knows, I'm not the biggest fan of these one or two gamers articles that has no other information other than a box score, but Cbl62 has done a great job like always in expanding and rescuing the article. Secret ^account 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously satisfies WP:WPBB/N. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all MLB players. Subject obviously meets both WP:GNG and WP:WPBB/N. Applause for Cbl62 for his work to improve the article, though it would have deserved to have been kept even in the absence of such. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't think WP:WPBB/N is under dispute, I'm curious about WP:GNG - which sources in particular do you think support your contention of WP:GNG? I don't see any that cover the subject in significant detail.--KarlB (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it currently stands clearly meets WP:GNG. Ans as you know also meets WP:WPBB/N. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources specifically meet WP:GNG? --KarlB (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you sure Moose McCormick does not meet WP:GNG? Is anyone sure that Oxley is well-covered from many diversive reliable sources independent of the subject? Anyway, baseball players are not well-covered nowadays because of recentism, such as Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and Barack Obama. While Obama is a current president, Oxley happens to be a baseball player from either 19th or 20th century. GNG is not very kind to older subjects nowadays, and, per WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack, if this subject meets GNG and fails Baseball notability, or if this subject meets Baseball notability and fails GNG, this person may be notable in either way. Even inclusion of this article is a good treat for baseball enthusiasts and a nice step to educate history of unknown. --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WPBB/N. For editors arguing that the article does not meet the GNG but slamming the specific guidelines, please note that the GNG is also a presumption of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My delete vote was based on an application of common sense. I conceded that this article passes the SNG, but it does so in the most marginal manner (three uneventful regular season games). Thus, it makes sense to look for evidence that it passes the GNG - and even after Cb162's fine work, there is little reason to believe it does (or could). Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have read the article so far, he was an inexperienced baseball catcher and had bad preparations. He just forfeited his career after three games and then became almost forgotten. Nevertheless, he settled a family, became a blacksmith, and then died. Also, this article is a lesson for future baseball catchers to be prepared. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think unless other sources come to light, the article should be deleted (or merged to a list) as non-notable and not meeting WP:GNG. --KarlB (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since I and many others seem to disagree with you, that most likely will not happen. Spanneraol (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of activity. No problems with a speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Ryno

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

Non-notable film/TV producer. While this article contains various claims about her work (working on Saturday Night Live, making a film, winning some minor awards), I don't believe it adds up to notability by our standards. I can't find much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(This one, from the article, is a good source, but it's about the only one:[1]) Robofish (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like she was also a Fear Factor contestent [2], but I haven't read that whole article. I haven't been able to verify the Annie Award, and there are quite a number of such awards, but I'm guessing the 97 SNL (not 98) noms listed here are what's referred to and, while unverified, probably accurate (see also [3]--of course she's not actually mentioned by name. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FILMMAKER - I found Tanya Ryno is very capable of SEO manipulation but I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. --Joshuaism (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the !vote appears to lean delete, there are two commenters who didn't !vote whose opinions appear to lean toward keep. Delete !voters did not address the issue that the lack of sources issue could be systematic bias toward English sources. From my perspective, this appears to be no consensus. v/r - T P 13:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vedevadandi babu

(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 spelling used by IMDb)

No references to show significance or notability of subject. Must be significantly rewritten to encyclopedic. Tow Trucker talk 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 31. Snotbot t • c » 00:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NOW It's encyclopdic.[4] Format is quite often an adressable issue. It does need expansion and sourcing, but perhaps now someone will bother. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film in a regional Indian language, starring major stars (Mohan Babu and Shilpa Shetty). Unfortunately again there is lack of coverage by English language media, as is the case with many regional language movies in India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is still unreferenced and no consensus is apparent yet.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is almost empty and may lack context (at least, I couldn't tell what it is). Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you not tell what this is about when it is explained in very simple language in the very first sentence of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, moives are almost always notable. Just because the article isn't well written doesn't mean it's deletable. Specs112 t c 12:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE - Does not meet Other Evidence of Notability. It may be possible to meet the standard for 2 full length reviews by nationally known critics if the title was provided in Talugu script or an interlanguage wiki link was provided but without these it is difficult to research and establish notability.--34.254.247.222 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crisco 1492 and the IP. This looks like it should be notable, but I couldn't find any sources either. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article fails notability guidelines (particularly WP:GNG), additionally questions of spam (which would be a speedy criterion) were not evaluated as moot. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LibNi

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

Unremarkable product, self promotion. No indication of significance or widespread use. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I've looked through the various Google searches and found nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the appropriate section of Linux, but I suspect deletion may be more appropriate. As above, I could find nothing useful on a search. Ubelowme (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not establish notability after. I'm against deleting new articles for this reason, but the author and other editors have had a week to improve it. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 18:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and lack of WP:RS The creator of this article is the creator of this product and he's promoting it on wikipedia. --Artene50 (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam, basically. No reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldy redirected to the obvious target, no need to keep this going for 7 days (NAC). Umbralcorax (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left Tackle

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

We already have a page that covers this, Tackle_(American_football). Also, unsourced and no context. (One liner) Cssiitcic (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tackle_(American_football). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core energetics

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

~~Other than a book published by the guy who invented this manifestation of New Age silliness, there's no indication of notability.~~ JoelWhy? talk 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My personal attitude is that this is New Age silliness, and the article is certainly not very good, but there are sufficient indications that "core energetics" names something notable enough to have a Wikipedia article -- the book by the originator, their web site, and numerous mentions in Google News. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their website does nothing to indicate notability. The book is published with some tiny publisher, so that's not enough for notability. I did a quick google search, but I didn't see much as far as articles. Could you post links to review? JoelWhy? talk 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only bothering to comment because I came across the article by chance and put a little effort into neutralizing it and adding a reference, and I don't like my work to be wasted, but really I don't care all that much. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the link to search books above and you will see the topic discussed in numerous sources. Clearly notable even if we don't like it. Borock (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a glaring inconsistency in WP rules, when a nominator for the peer-reviewed process of AfD can be guilty of infracting WP:BEFORE for not checking available sources, but any editor can tag that same article with WP:A7 or WP:A9 and delete it without discussion, or bothering to look for sources. Also WP:F4, WP:F7, or WP:F11, without having to look for evidence, or WP:G5 without there having to be anything wrong with the article whatsoever. While the nom did not check Books, at least it was brought to AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not siliness, it is a practice that was developed in 1970, and since then has been popular in other parts of the world. Lunchloopview (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Deletion request withdrawn Ok, I've found some other sources for this practice. Nomination withdrawn. JoelWhy? talk 12:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Xezbeth as blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornel Show

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

Was previously G3'd as wildly misrepresentative; recreated but is still potentially hoaxish, but taken to full AfD for a determinative consensus. Article is about a Ustream series that has no notability; claims of being nominated for awards are not substantiated by a search. Appears to be something that exists, but existence =/= notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can get a reference or two demonstrating notability. JoelWhy? talk 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'For the record, I checked the Nickelodeon page and could not find this guy nominated for an award in 2012. JoelWhy? talk 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There are no independent sources that confirms this show exists. The entire awards section is completely made up and an obvious piece of fiction. The "show" is apparantly about the person who wrote the article. This is definitely deletable under G3 and/or A7. Singularity42 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. And Ustream is not television. DarkAudit (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Grammatical nightmare, Nick never nominates web programming for Kids Choice Awards (especially a show with an episode called "3 Yrs Old Baby humping his aunt" which is just a VCR TV clip recorded by the camera), J-14 would have the sense to not have an award named "Icon To Tomorrow", and It's a Laugh is exclusively a Disney division that would go nowhere near Ustream. Logo should also be obliterated as a watermarked copyvio. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Page has already been speedy deleted and user blocked for this and other hoax pages. DarkAudit (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted, and the keep !vote demonstrates the topic's notability per WP:NF. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity's End

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

Non-notable film with minimal to no coverage. Does not meet criteria at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on producer/director. This review might help. Still not enough to say about film for its own article. Borock (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep I have not (yet) begun work to expand and source the article (later tonight) but find immediately found in-depth commentary and analysis in secondary sources DVD Talk Home Media Magazine Virtual DVD Magazine (German) and Quiet Earth... and to a far lesser extent, those in Horror Talk Close-up Film 411 Mania Blogomatic3000 Flickering Myth as indicators that we have a meeting of the requisistes of WP:NRVE and WP:NF. While yes, its state when nominated is/was poor,[5] and with respects to the nominator, the addressable issues of expansion and sourcing do not require deletion. We have plenty with which to build the nominated stub into something which better serves the project. Back in a while... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources are substantial enough to establish notability here, although they do make me want to see it. :-) -Borock (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that expansion and improvement is ongoing,[6] and the sources being used DO address the film directly and in detail, and in a more-than-trivial manner. Even without extensive media coverage (this ain't Star Wars after all), the ones used (so far) are substantial enough in their analysis and commentary so as to have this topic meet WP:NF. As I wrote above, addresable issues rarely require deletion of stub articles... specially if the topic can be expanded and made encyclopedic to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this AfD. It seems that Michael's good work has revealed enough notability for inclusion. BOVINEBOY2008 01:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appraisal Management Company

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

Non-notable company. The "award" which they won appears to have been awarded by a website that lists no information about itself, no selection criteria, nor any other information to bolster the legitimacy of the award. (It appears for all the world that they set up the shell simply for the purpose of awarding themselves!) Outside of that "award" there is no sign of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nearly speedy per db-corp. Not even a pretense of notability, and I for one wouldn't consider the probably self-created award, or anything else in the article, as even a credible claim of importance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article provides no notability from any reliable sources. Rotorcowboy ^talk
_contribs 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appraise this as being advertising. Where's my award? Ubelowme (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm Sorry, you'll have to set up your own website to award yourself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. and above. The award-free-- Dewritech (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Mr. Static. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Static (Demonic Toys)

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know about. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I went through a bunch of User:TheElderDarkStar's pages two weeks ago and had them deleted -- same thing as these current pages (i.e. characters from B-horror movies which clearly aren't notable.) It appears he's back at it again. I've posted a polite request that he stop doing this on his talk page. But, if he keeps it up, I'll report him to admin. JoelWhy? talk 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films, per WP:PRESERVE, retaining verifiable information in one place. The series of Demonic Toys films are notable (Demonic Toys, Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys, Demonic Toys 2). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Mr. Static, as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys). Cavarrone (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films p b p 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two problems with the above "merge" !votes: 1/ Neither the articles on the individual characters, nor the list article, nor the articles on the Demonic Toys movies have a single reliable source (Demonic Toys 2 is the only article with references - to trailers and blogs). Hence, there is no verifiable information that can be merged. 2/ While fictional characters like Darth Vader have obvious out-of-universe notability, there is no evidence at all that any of the Demonic Toys characters have any out-of-universe notability. I don't see any reason why we need separate articles on them, or even a single list article on them, as brief plot synopses are sufficient for the individual films. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a compromise. Lack of coverage to WP:verify notability, but WP:PRESERVE can be followed if we merge it to a broader notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I wrote "Keep", but I suppose I mean "moot" more than anything else. The page has been moved to "Bus monitor bullying video" since this nomination was opened. While that isn't the best title for the page, it is abundantly clear that no consensus in this discussion could be found for deleting that page. Closing this discussion without prejudice to a future AFD or RM discussion. NW (Talk) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Klein

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

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

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

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

I know this will be a controversial nomination, but here it goes anyway. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:CRYSTAL (for those who argue that she will become an important figure in anti-bullying efforts). This news broke less than 24 hours ago. Wikipedia is not a news site. Give it some time, people. SheepNotGoats [User talk:SheepNotGoats|talk]]) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I didn't add this article because it's news. I added it because she's notable and the event that happened to her is notable. Just because it's covered all over the news doesn't mean Klein doesn't deserve her own article. She's just like Rudy Eugene and other notable people that have been covered in the news recently, only she's in the news for a different reason. Soulboost (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:BLP1E. Yes, this might be covered by many news agencies, however the biography is not notable enough to have an article. -- Luke (Talk) 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe renaming would be better because it is likely that event will likely become notable in the future. Maybe renaming the article and adding a section to discuss the subject of the event would be good. -- Luke (Talk) 23:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - maybe not the bio, but the event is certainly notable as it's been covered by NBC, CNN, CBS, etc. Soulboost (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move the page to Making The Bus Monitor Cry, but I would still keep the page Soulboost (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Informative and nicely referenced article linked from the front page of Google News. No other place has such a good summary of events. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:ITSUSEFUL before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it's true that she is only notable for a single event, the amount of coverage and the number of people viewing the video, and the amount of money raised online, make it clear that this is likely to be one of those events that will be discussed for a long time, and will likely become the basis for new suggested policies, educational programs, and perhaps even legislation. In that sense, it's a bit like the Rodney King case, which was indisputably worthy of an article, or the Phoebe Prince case. DLC (talk) 10:20 pm, Today (UTC+4.5)

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E and (re: "will likely become...", WP:CRYSTAL as well) before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Normally I just feel like these should be deleted right away, but people did take the time to dig up information for a knee-jerk deletion to take it all away. I recommend waiting a week or two to see if she's just the flavor of the week, or if this actually has long term merit. I don't feel that getting picked up by the mainstream media is necessarily grounds for permanent enshrinement into the Wikipedian consciousness either. (which was my argument for deletion for what's-her-name in that contraception debate) Sarysa (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sick and tired of barnstared wikipedia admins deciding social consciousness merits no inclusion.dmode (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A regular editor, not an admin, nominated this for deletion. The vast majority of participants in this deletion discussion are not admins. So please stop castigating admins in this deletion discussion, when they have participated very little towards affecting its course. --MuZemike 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete textbook WP:BLP1E. If we're still talking about this a year from now, create an article for.the event.~~
- I note that there is only one sentence in this article that contains actual biographical information about the woman. Isn't there some other "List of ..." article this can be merged to? Zad68 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~How about a 1-sentence entry for the event at: List_of_Internet_phenomena#Videos Zad68 14:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Striking out my !vote as the target article has been modified so significantly away from what this AFD was originally written for that my original !vote and comments have been rendered moot. I don't feel like !voting on what the article has become now. Zad68 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not about the person but the event, and the internet phenomenon of a viral video that got ample news coverage, and resulted in a large amount of money raised for the woman. If necessary you can rename the article. Dream Focus 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is notable and deserves to be seen by others, I seriously have no idea why one would even give thought to deletion of this article - Octavannus-Caelestis 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, "Tank Man" should be deleted. Get on it. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Get on it!" Ha ha ha ha! Wow, facetiousness! I am truly humbled. Except Tank Man doesn't fit BLP1E's don't-have-an-article criteria, so your statement is meaningless. Have any comments that match the subject at hand to actual policy and guidelines? EEng (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is only temporarily notable, and Wikipedia is not a news site. For example, it's already off the front of Google's news page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.120.102 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still linked from Google News when not logged in, first story in U.S. section. --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is Help! Should I Wait Until My Dog Dies Before Marrying My Boyfriend? Perhaps you should start an article. EEng (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Not notable at all. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable at all? I guess CNN, CBS, MSNBC, People Magazine, Fox News, Huff Post, Washington Post, USA Today and over $400k raised in less than 48 hours just don't establish notability anymore. Soulboost (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, if at least for the moment. Very notable. Currently being covered by thousands of sources internationally. Very viral story. Also noteworthy is the amount of money raised for her in a single day. Sources are making it clear that the half-million USD fund is substantial, notable, and newsworthy. As the story itself seems more notable than the person, a renaming seems logical. Dmarquard (talk)

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to article on event, not person. Talk about BLP1E! EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read it? "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This event is perhaps the most publicised and clear example of a larger cultural issue. Karen Klein is not Rosa Parks, but her bus incident has opened the eyes of millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrearlyadopter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Mrearlyadopter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, easily fails WP:BLP1E. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and refocus. Although the person clearly fails WP:BLP1E, the viral video easily meets notability. I suggest renaming the article to Bus monitoring bullying video or Making The Bus Monitor Cry or something and refocusing the article from being about the person to be about the video and the public's reaction to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:BLP1E --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rename, but I feel this meets notability requirements. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs to be renamed, but the article is notable. It has been reported in independent 3rd party media, http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/us/new-york-bus-monitor-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 ScienceApe (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
$545,000 Keep Hugely successful and notable Indiegogo campaign even bigger than "Operation BearLove Good. Cancer Bad." CallawayRox (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The video itself is a notable viral video. Name the article after the video. Can't believe it's raised $563,000, but very well deserved. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename There is not enough biography about Karen Klein herself. In-Correct (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename based upon the event, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BIO1E. The topic of the event and viral video has received significant coverage in reliable sources. See also WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary..." Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is hardly supported by BIO1E's advice that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Anyway, BLP1E controls here, not BIO1E, so instead of a mistaken argument based on BIO1E can you make a mistaken argument based on BLP1E? EEng (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your responses, EENg. Do you understand the difference between an article about a person and an article about an event? The latter is clearly what is called for and what an early reading of concensus is calling for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my careless comments -- sorry -- there had been so many simple keeps (instead of move/merge, which makes sense) that I overlooked the and rename in the later keep and rename entries (I think simply saying move or rename would be a little less confusing). EEng (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I renamed the article to Bus monitor bullying video. I'm not sure if that's the best name, but this addresses the WP:BLP1E objections above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly notable by this point. There's really no debate here. Also, EEng, please watch your tone in here. Your snide and sarcastic comments towards other Wikipedians are in violation of WP:CIVIL. Ironically, they also constitute bullying, which is something Karen Klein would like to see no more of. Shortbus30 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Shortbus30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With one or two exceptions the editors I engaged less than smilingly had enough experience to know (or so that they should have known) that e.g. listing the networks that covered the story (in some otherwise unspecified way) is hardly a notability argument. One particular editor's reduplicated misquoting of BLP1E was particularly vexatious, though I did overreact. However, I deny that any of this constitutes bullying -- these people are all capable of defendeing themselves, ideally by substituting applicable for nonapplicable arguments. EEng (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEng You're not helping your case here by using big words and obfuscating the concerns voiced over your snide remarks. Regardless of how others here edit this page, you are responsible for your own tone, which is - at times - decidedly condescending, unnecessary, and ancillary to the discussion at hand. Also, no one here is responsible for "defending themselves," as no one else is supposed to be attacking them. Defend their ideas? Yes, that is expected. Defend themselves? No. DorkKnight (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dying to know -- in condemning "big words and obfuscating," are you are engaging in concious self-parody? Nonetheless, to help you I've struck out some of the bigger words below and substituted smaller ones with fewer syllables.

I'm also puzzled by your objection to what you call my "tone...ancillary to the discussion at hand." Since ancillary refers to something in necessary or supportive association with something else, I suspect you actually meant e.g. extraneous. You might ~~reduce the hazard of malapropism in your composition~~be less likely to put your foot in your mouth if you took your own advice (above) to avoid big words.

Since I called for people to defend "themselves" by "substituting applicable for nonapplicable arguments," it's clear that it was their conclusions, not themselves personally, that they would actually be defending. This is an example of metonymy, a big word you can look up in a reference on ~~rhetoric~~ techniques for argument and persuasion.

EEng (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. We get it. Some of their word choices are questionable. But your attempts at being witty aren't helping things either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "2012 Greece, NY School Bus Bullying Incident," which removes any and all violations of WP:BLP1E. This entry does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because the event is highly verified, and is not predicated on any future speculation. It also does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, as it is not first-hand news journalism, but rather a summary of events and facts in other journalistic publications. Also, this clearly cannot be considered "routine news reporting" as an event which touches millions of people around the world in less than three days can by no means be considered "routine." Furthermore, as the news media moves on from this event to other newsworthy items, the information here will eventually be the only available source of truth for the event, which I believe is one of the primary goals of Wikipedia - preserving information. Keep in mind the nation's persistent (not fleeting) attention towards the subject of bullying and the numerous lives which have been cut-short because of it. I also strongly encourage user EEng to refrain from snarky and snide comments directed towards other users as this is in violation of the above cited guideline WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia discussions are a place to share opinions and ideas, not demonstrate how clever and demeaning one can be towards others.

One more problem, EEng, is your own user page. You incorrectly translate the French idiom: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." as "Wait for coins to drop, then please make your selection." I cannot tell if this is a joke, or you are just ignorant. The actual closest English translation of this idiom is "The more things change, the more they stay the same." DorkKnight (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell if this is a joke, or you are just clueless. By the way, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" is not, as you seem to think, an idiom -- it might be termed a saying, chestnut, bromide, cliche, or even (a stretch) a proverb, but it's certainly not an idiom. Again, you might want to take your own advice (above) and avoid use of big, technical terms you don't understand, such as idiom.

EEng (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability of the incident is clear. It may need to be renamed, but this is still a developing situation. She may end up running a charity or something, but for now the notability rests on the incident. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but immediately refocus on the video, and not have any more biographical detail than necessary. We don't want to obsess over a woman notable for one famous incident of kids being wankers. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another trivial news item that the news media has gone way overboard on its reporting. Nothing special or notable about mean teenagers on a bus. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS. If this article stands, Wikipedia will have hit a new low. The reason these articles usually get kept after deletion discussions like these is because of the mob mentality of people thinking that if they are interested in the topic, then it must have its own article, despite it being against Wikipedia policies.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It is about more than mean teenagers on a bus. It ceased to be "trivial" when a guy in Toronto, Max Sidorov, started raising money for her [7], and the total is approaching $600,000. Taroaldo (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now fundraising money is notable enough to warrant an article? It's just another news story that the media is "milking" for all it's worth to sell newspapers, and ads. People like these feel good type of stories, but it doesn't make it notable enough for an entire article. That's just the very reason why Wikipedia has WP:NOTNEWS,, so that every single trivial news story that gets a bit extra attention by the media doesn't become it's own article. Yet, like it always seems to happen, fans of the story flock to the deletion boards and overwhelm the deletion discussion with their "keep" votes, and the closing admin usually, not always, plays it safe, and sides with the majority.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the pieces individually, none of it would merit consideration. That's not how it's done though. How does a book or movie achieve notability? People see/read it and talk about it; stuff gets written about it; it gets awards. If people watched a movie or read a book and nobody wrote about it or talked about it, but instead kept all their observations to themselves, then none of them would be notable. Somebody puts a few vids on YouTube, but nobody watches them. Flop. Another guy does the same thing and people like it and talk about it. The second guy ends up doing world tours and having 20 million followers on Twitter. Like it or not, that's kinda how it works. Taroaldo (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jojhutton: Your statements that "the news media has gone way overboard on its reporting" and "media is 'milking' for all it's worth" sound like admissions that the article topic has, in fact, recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus meet our notability guideline. Your objection seems to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for deletion. If you don't like this article, Wikipedia has plenty of other articles for you to work on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic nonsense and an inappropriate attempt to use Wikipedia to permanently record yet another WP:BLP1E violation. People churn out privacy-invading videos every day and WP:N is not satisfied just because a lot of passers by discussed it. Where is the secondary source with an analysis of bullying or videos, and which mentions this case in any significant manner? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DavidlChandler Pass a Method talk 14:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Wikipedia itself is not a news site, then why isn't there a seperate Wiki News site?! In-Correct (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 07:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:VICTIM. Also the usual embarrassing, unencyclopedic type nonsense that unfortunately crops up on Wikipedia, thus making WP a media outlet rather than an encylcopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love the blind regurgitation of alphabet soup above that betrays the poster's understanding of what those policies really mean. For example, WP:BIO1E actually supports keeping the article. Sigh.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I assure you I kept my eyes open while I regurgitated. Nor is it my fault that Wikipedia has the alphabet soup in the first instance. In any event (pun intended), it isn't clear to me what the name of this awful article is, so I figured I'd cover my bases. If you're going to name the article for the individual, there's one set of confusing policies, and if you're going to name it for the person, there's another, and then, of course, to some extent, there's an intersection of the policies to completely confuse even a sighted regurgitator. After all, this page says Karen Klein, but if you click on Karen Klein, it has the event name, or at least what passes for an event name - it's really the name of a medium. Maybe I should look at the notability guidelines for films?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think following WP:GNG is fine. Let's cut to the chase. This only question here is this: Has this received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? The answer is a clear and unqualified 'yes'. Everything else is little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about WP:GNG misses the point completely. The one-event policies and guidelines are exceptions to the generalized notability guidelines. I'll agree they are confusing. I'll agree they are hard to apply, and AfDs like this one are almost always contentious - and it's almost impossible to predict the outcome - but GNG is irrelevant because it's a given.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the article from its original "Named Person" title to an article on the incident. So far, so good. However, the article still features the named person, a totally non-public figure who has done absolutely nothing to warrant international attention, and submits her to permanent ridicule—and all because some bullies managed to get some space-filling media attention that will be forgotten in a week. An encyclopedia should have articles on topics: the effects of bullying (not a list of gossipy events, but serious stuff with secondary sources). Wikipedia should not be a place to hang trophies. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...I'm not sure how to respond to this. I think that most of the world has a sympathetic view towards her, and I don't think that you're agreeing with the bulliers so I don't see how this is a 'trophy'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ - Oh. Somebody's already done that.
Keep - However, article needs revision / refocussing. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to note that this user was canvassed to come !vote here: [8] SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the bus monitor's name from the lede and de-emphasized it in the article.[9] If there are more improvements that can be made, please let me know or feel free to do so yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bus monitor has apparently gone public by conducting an interview with the press, a short excerpt is presented here.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with the Today show.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another public interview with the bus monitor.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good nomination. But after the renaming and the work by A Quest for Knowledge, the article is a lot better, and worthwhile. So keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook BLP1E, nothing more to say about a woman's notoriety for a singe event. As for an article, there's nothing about this that satisfies WP:EVENT, just another insipid viral news story that will be talked about for a week and forgotten, which is why WP:RECENTISM should be required reading for new article creation. Come back in a few months or so if this is still talked about in a greater scope. There's a lot of "keep its notable" emptiness up there that the closing admin needs to make note of and discard. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you do realize that BLP1E is an argument for inclusion, not against and that RECENTISM is only an essay, right? If you disagree with GNG, fine, but this isn't the proper venue to change policy. AQFK (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it isn't. There shouldn't be an article on the woman herself as she fails WP:BLP1E. There shouldn't be an article on the incident as it fails WP:EVENT. People that think either of these should be articles at all should be slapped upside the head with WP:RECENTISM. Two facts, and an opinion; not hard to understand. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly but more concisely put.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, it is. Have you read it lately? If a lack of understanding of WP:BLP1E is the problem, then I suggest more time should be invested in understanding Wikipedia's policies. Thus far no one has provided a single policy-based reason why this article should be deleted, and sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to; possibly satisfying the GNG (remember that 2nd G means "guideline", sport; its not the "General Notability Policy") is not an automatic qualifier for an article. If a person has only received coverage in the context of one event, then the bean-counting of reliable sources that the person appears in is irrelevant. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orville (cat) and count the sources. No article. I have pointed out valid reasons to delete above and while you may disagree with those reasons, to pretend they do not exist is quite a whopper of a lie, AQFK. I fear it is you that needs some remedial BLP1E brushing-up. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AQFK, when some !voted Keep, User:EEng happily put in a refrain about wasting everyone's time. Obversely, when someone !votes delete, we now have your misguided refrain of IDONTLIKEIT. Neither of you is being helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: Wow, you do realize that there is no "General Notability Policy"? There's the WP:GNG which is clearly satisfied. Again, can you provide a single policy or guideline-based justification for deleting this article? It's seems unfortunate that despite repeated calls, no one can provide a single valid reason why this article should be deleted. To be honest, if you can't come up with a reason, there's no point in even responding further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, several times; a BLP1E failure for the woman (only coverage for a single event), a WE:Event failure (no historical or global scope, no lasting effect or impact). The point you're not getting here is that "satisfy the GNG" is not enough. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BLP1E is an argument for inclusion, not against. Have you even read WP:BLP1E yet? Apparently not. Otherwise, you'd stop bringing it up. As for WP:EVENT, it calls for national coverage, not global coverage. But even if WP:EVENT called for global coverage, here it is.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, WP:BLP1E is an argument for inclusion"...No, it isn't, I don't know why you keep saying so fundamentally incorrect. Look at the number of articles that are nominated for and successfully deleted day in and day out by citing BLP1E. A most recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigar guy. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E has 3 conditions, all of which need to be met in order for the article to be deleted. Condition 1 is met but not 2 and 3. Condition 2 says we should have an article about the event, not the person. Condition 3 is failed because of the significant coverage of this person's role in the event. WP:BLP1E is an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no, it isn't. That line that begins with "We should generally avoid having an article.." should be pretty obvious here. Also, it fails criteria 2, as giving a few interviews does not elevate someone from "low-profile". #3? Fail. Being video-taped crying on a bus is a interesting-news-of-the-day event, no long-lasting scope or importance. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between an article about a person and an article about an event? I ask because the phrase that you take out of context, "We should generally avoid having an article" actually states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person" (Emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

$650,000 living bullied bus monitor > €100,000 dead helo kitty. Q.E.D. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Meets the WP:GNG. Change the focus, as per a number of editors have suggested already, if it helps garner consensus and fall within policy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (under the current, renamed title). Yes, it's a very new story, but the amount of coverage it's received - and in particular, the remarkable success of the fundraising campaign - make this a clearly notable event already. It's arguably at least as notable as Bus Uncle or AC Transit Bus fight (or if not quite yet, it's certainly on the way there). Robofish (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Only temporarily notable, will be forgotten shortly. In addition, Wikipedia is referencing news outlets who are clearly being sensationalistic. Oh, and WP:BLP1E Skrelk (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:N#TEMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.58.75 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The third criterion of WP:BLP1E says that an article should be deleted if "it is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". It then goes on to clarify what is meant by significant: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". This event has been covered in reliable sources multiple times and there have been follow up coverage since the immediate aftermath of the event. Sure 3 months down the road we're not likely to see this in the news, but then again we don't often see mention of John Hinckley, Jr in the news either yet we keep that article. I think the current redirect is fine. Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the WP:GNG requirements, at least for now. Whether it will have long-lasting notability remains to be seen. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Mr. Static. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zombietoid (Demonic Toys)

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know about. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I went through a bunch of User:TheElderDarkStar's pages two weeks ago and had them deleted -- same thing as these current pages (i.e. characters from B-horror movies which clearly aren't notable.) It appears he's back at it again. I've posted a polite request that he stop doing this on his talk page. But, if he keeps it up, I'll report him to admin. JoelWhy? talk 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films, per WP:PRESERVE, retaining verifiable information in one place. The series of Demonic Toys films are notable (Demonic Toys, Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys, Demonic Toys 2). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Zombietoid, as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys). Cavarrone (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films p b p 01:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two problems with the above "merge" !votes: 1/ Neither the articles on the individual characters, nor the list article, nor the articles on the Demonic Toys movies have a single reliable source (Demonic Toys 2 is the only article with references - to trailers and blogs). Hence, there is no verifiable information that can be merged. 2/ While fictional characters like Darth Vader have obvious out-of-universe notability, there is no evidence at all that any of the Demonic Toys characters have any out-of-universe notability. I don't see any reason why we need separate articles on them, or even a single list article on them, as brief plot synopses are sufficient for the individual films. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as compromise. See other similar AFDs. Article lacks sources, but merging might allow it to grow while still following policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close as another AfD nomination on the same article is currently open. One deletion discussion at a time. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys)

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know off. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as duplicate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys) is still open for this article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Jack Attack. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Attack (Demonic Toys)

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know off. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I went through a bunch of 's pages two weeks ago and had them deleted -- same thing as these current pages (i.e. characters from B-horror movies which clearly aren't notable.) It appears he's back at it again. I've posted a polite request that he stop doing this on his talk page. But, if he keeps it up, I'll report him to admin. JoelWhy? talk 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Jack Attack, as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys). Cavarrone (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films, per WP:PRESERVE, retaining verifiable information in one place. The series of Demonic Toys films are notable (Demonic Toys, Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys, Demonic Toys 2). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films p b p 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two problems with the above "merge" !votes: 1/ Neither the articles on the individual characters, nor the list article, nor the articles on the Demonic Toys movies have a single reliable source (Demonic Toys 2 is the only article with references - to trailers and blogs). Hence, there is no verifiable information that can be merged. 2/ While fictional characters like Darth Vader have obvious out-of-universe notability, there is no evidence at all that any of the Demonic Toys characters have any out-of-universe notability. I don't see any reason why we need separate articles on them, or even a single list article on them, as brief plot synopses are sufficient for the individual films. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with other similar articles. Seems like a fair compromise for something without substantial coverage in third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mention at team articles. v/r - T P 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Cheerleading

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

Material without context that can easily be rolled into the culture sections of each team's articles. No notable references for the issue in general although individual squads may have coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Could maybe have a brief (brief!) mention at the MLS main page. Giant Snowman 17:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ensure that the squad names are in the relevant team articles, and then delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into respective team articles, then Delete. Zappa O Mati 23:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If other editors see fit, bring up cheerleading on individual club pages. But by itself, this article definitely fails WP:GNG. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films. v/r - T P 18:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Oopsie Daisy (Demonic Toys)

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

Zero sources. Zero out-of-universe notability. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know about. Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I went through a bunch of User:TheElderDarkStar's pages two weeks ago and had them deleted -- same thing as these current pages (i.e. characters from B-horror movies which clearly aren't notable.) It appears he's back at it again. I've posted a polite request that he stop doing this on his talk page. But, if he keeps it up, I'll report him to admin. JoelWhy? talk 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films, per WP:PRESERVE, retaining verifiable information in one place. The series of Demonic Toys films are notable (Demonic Toys, Dollman vs. Demonic Toys, Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys, Demonic Toys 2). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Baby Oopsie Daisy, as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Teddy (Demonic Toys). Cavarrone (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge and redirect Histmerge back into Baby Oopsy Daisy (character) where the initial version was copied from, leave both as redirects to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films#Baby Oopsie Daisy. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of toys in the Demonic Toys films p b p 01:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two problems with the above "merge" !votes: 1/ Neither the articles on the individual characters, nor the list article, nor the articles on the Demonic Toys movies have a single reliable source (Demonic Toys 2 is the only article with references - to trailers and blogs). Hence, there is no verifiable information that can be merged. 2/ While fictional characters like Darth Vader have obvious out-of-universe notability, there is no evidence at all that any of the Demonic Toys characters have any out-of-universe notability. I don't see any reason why we need separate articles on them, or even a single list article on them, as brief plot synopses are sufficient for the individual films. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a suitable compromise. Article has no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The International Day of Heavy Metal

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

I agree with the PROD rational: "Informal holiday with only references coming from heavy-metal related websites. May not meet Notability criteria." PROD was removed without any efforts →TSU ^tp* 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly non-notable and spammy. ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not spammy. This is a concept to unite all heavy metal and hard rock fans the world over to recognise the genre. This type of music has been around for many years and whilst many events and inventions have their own days to celebrate, heavy metal music does not. In order to make this a regular year on year day of celebration, awareness has to be made. Facebook group has generated nearly 3500 supporters in 4 months, Twitter has almost 100 followers in 2 months and 14 other organisations have listed this concept on their websites as a reciprocal link. Yes, these websites are all heavy metal related, which is to expected, as it is very unlikely for this day to appear on websites related to say flowers or motor vehicles. I understood that Wikipedia is a source of information for the world population to find out about things, that is why the page has been created. Yes, the inaugural day is to be held this year and when it has then the page will be added to and expanded by all those fans who celebrated. This concept is growing and getting more support every day and it is only a matter of time before it does become a part of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.19.198 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who first PRODed this article. I'm a lifelong metalhead myself, but until this holiday/observance gets some sort of independent, disinterested 3rd-party coverage, I don't think it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My sympathies to the creator, but I can't find any reliable sources to document any arm's-length third-party expert source that says that this is notable, and Wikipedia is not for promoting your invented holidays. Like many such things, when it does "become a part of life", we'll note it here on Wikipedia -- not the other way around. Ubelowme (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be spam. The IP editors comments above do not inspire confidence in me that this subject has notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. It exists, per various blog and commercial websites, but no coverage in RS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing as non consensus because this is not an acceptable group nomination. The previous nomination referred to there is not a good precedent. It covered a much narrower range of topics, all of them specialized aspects of NLP that could probably fit well into a general article; this one also covers individuals and organizations, and the standards for notability & the possible manner or merging & the possible need for redirects are different. (And I'm not sure the previous one was a good close -- though a more justifiable group nomination than this, it still did not have discussion of the individual items, especially items which were added during the nomination.) I suspect we may well end up deleting most or possibly all of these, but they need to be discussed. (And when they are, I advise the nom. not make the argument that books are less reliable in general than other sources, for it is flatly contradictory to policy. Books from reliable publishers, especially academic or learned society publishers, are at least as reliable as journal articles--and often more so, in that they normally get much more stringent peer review because of the greater financial commitment. That they can be more easily cited here without actually being read is a problem; but this must be discussed in individual cases. The book published by the British computer society may or may not actually be a RS, but it would be treated as one unless there is evidence otherwise.) DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State management (NLP)

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

Same reasons as recent Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchoring (NLP) Famous_dog 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for much the same reasons (poor sourcing, promotional or SP sources, fringe topic, notability concerns, etc):

... and these articles about non- or barely-notable NLP authors:

Famous_dog 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI - Because ... "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

OBO α ω 07:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added more not-particularly-notable NLPers, notable only for using WP to promote themselves. Famous_dog 11:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There seem to be numerous sources covering the concept of state management such as Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development; Ahead of the Game; NLP for Project Managers; &c. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with the main article about NLP or a similar article such as mood management theory. It therefore seems that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and we should not delete a large heterogeneous bundle without such due diligence. Warden (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are any of these "numerous sources" you mention RS or are they all books? These various articles do not seem to be about notable enough aspects NLP (already a niche topic) to deserve their own entries. There is also very little well-sourced and informative material to salvage. Some articles (Future pacing) have only single sources, usually a business website. Most of them (NLP University, State management) are simply unsourced stubs. Some other more lengthy articles (Sleight of mouth) are context- and discussion-free lists of examples ("...most of the understanding will follow from working through examples, and seeing how these are applied..."). They do not explain the very concepts they purport to be about and WP is WP:NOT a how-to manual. Finally, very few other articles link to these (or rather, they all link to each other, creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN) and I am positive that the readership of WP would not miss them. Famous_dog 11:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  - NLP for Project Managers is published by the British Computer Society which is a respectable professional body. More generally, what you're effectively trying to do here is speedy delete this bundle of topics. Please deal with them separately using that process, which is described at WP:CSD. Warden (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody suggested that during the other recent AFD. Please explain yourself. Famous _dog (c) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (after edit conflict) Are you claiming that books cannot be reliable sources? And the ones listed by Colonel Warden are not self-published, including one published by the British Computer Society. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most fringe books aren't! WP:SPS suggests that books should be treated with scepticism. Although I admit it is very much publisher-dependent. Famous_dog (c) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:SPS only suggests that self-published books should be treated with scepticism. The idea that all books should be treated with scepticism is as ridiculous as the idea that NLP has any scientific basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Books are not peer-reviewed and are usually produced for the simple expedient of making some publisher some money, so although I see your point that I have interpreted WP:SPS too stringently in this case, the idea that all books should be treated with scepticism is NOT "as ridiculous as the idea that NLP has any scientific basis." It is in fact significantly less ridiculous. Books should be treated with more scepticism than scientific articles, depending on who the author is and who the publisher is, although we should be much less sceptical about that than the validity of NLP! However... dragging this comment thread back to the subject at hand... Most of these topics/people are simply not notable enough to warrant their own articles and the one article that Warden seems to think is notable is currently a Stubby McStubstub composed of two sentences that don't really say anything and are dependent upon reading several other NLP articles (some of which have recently been deleted). Merge and redirect that one if you wish, but the vast majority of these articles have very little in the way of sourcing and very little to add to WP. The biog articles are simple self-promotion. Famous _dog (c) 08:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles on NLP topics to Neuro-linguistic programming: having all these separate articles seems excessive coverage especially when they're short. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Fight

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

This is an unsourced article about a non-notable event. I found no independent sources to support any claims that this event was notable. I'll admit "Thai Fight" is a poor search term, but the article doesn't give any information about this event (such as dates, location, etc.) to narrow the search.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to show any reason why its subject is notable and it has no sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads more like an ad. It has no reliable sources and I found nothing that shows notability. Mdtemp (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel: Avengers Alliance

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

Entirely unsourced, no meaningful out of game content and has persistent fans repeatedly restoring masses of gameguide info Jac16888 ^Talk 14:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BEFORE and the fact that AfD isn't cleanup. Plenty of coverage at Kotaku [14], [15], Joystiq, GameZebo, Gamasutra, etc. Found via the reliable sources search. --Teancum (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Teancum's sources. I've seen additional sources in passing in the past too. It gets enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources that are covering Marvel: Avengers Alliance so don't be so lazy and source them, instead of resorting to the easy option of nominating this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.176.186 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's good as it currently is. Anyone adding game guides to it can be easily reverted. Mckrongs (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It's a good game and it's good as it is. Yet it's missions should remain as well. Rtkat3 (talk 8:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Dog the Bounty Hunter . Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline, but it is an appropriate redirect to Dog the Bounty Hunter. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bihag

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

Non-notable person. There are only two sources: one is a list of episodes he appears on, the other is his Facebook account. Fails WP:N – Richard BB 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a trace of any notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog the Bounty Hunter. All the (few) coverage about hism is related to that show. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Not sure that this even deserves a redirect. There are additional sources (HERE IS ONE) but this belongs in Dog the Bounty Hunter article, not as a standalone page. --Morning277 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He's mentioned in the Dog the Bounty Hunter article and not independently notable. Having a redirect at least saves the trouble of using WP search and then clicking on a result. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that we should have this list in some form, which some support for moving the list to a better title. This can be done by any editor and can be discussed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles in Australia

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

The content in this list is unable to be verified. Any single can get a platinum certification in Australia but doesn't actually reflect the sales of it. Read these two articles for more info. [16] [17] Till 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all information verified by the Australian music industry and a Platinum record is given at 70,000 sales so your argument is flawedSeasider91 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SOrry but your argument is flawed. Australian certifications are based on shipments, not sales. There's a difference. Unless documented by a reliable source, no-one will ever know what the best-selling singles of Australia are. Till 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and explain criteria used. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DEL#REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". In this case there are no reliable sources that can prove that these are the best-selling singles of Australia, as certifications are based on shipments (i.e. a single may have recieved Platinum certification which is 70,000 shipments, but in reality may have only sold 20,000 copies). How about providing an actual rationale for voting 'keep', so that your comment has some weight to the discussion in question? Till 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of singles certified platinum in Australia. That should hopefully satisfy Till's objection. (Platinum vs. quadruple platinum to be less arbitrary.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better since we're not claiming that the singles have sold a particular amount which is unverifiable (i've said that so many times! Lol). Till 03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Labels buy singles certifications when singles cross thresholds. Welcome to the Digital Era. · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to whom? ARIA says that they certify recordings based on shipments. Till 03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because ARIA Singles Certifications merge both physical and digital copies though physical represent almost nothing but physical singles still exist and since it's the same certification, ARIA can't clearly say "based on sales". · Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 15:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it say this on the official website? If not, that's WP:OR. Till 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss a move (to List of singles certified platinum in Australia, or similar) in the talk page. It seems here what is contested is just the title, not the content. Cavarrone (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No great love for a delete outcome from the discussion below; if some of the participants want to propose a merge, we have such a procedure. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnic Empire

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

According to AfD on plwiki this incorrect article is being translated to multiple wikis (""...In the Kazakh steppes, additional tribes joined, forming a new tribal union: the Huns. [...] Attila, a Hunnic chieftain [...] plundered Roman lands, seeking loot and tribute, not territorial conquests. [...] When Attila died [...] his confederation quickly collapsed. The Huns melted back into the steppe, occasionally appearing as Roman mercenaries.[...] Despite their ferocious reputations, the Huns, east and west, were never a threat to the existence of China or the Roman Empire." " P. Golden, "Central Asia in World History", pages. 33-34", Peter B. Golden: An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East mentions that it at the best case Atilla created confederation, certainly not state/empire) Bulwersator (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link - pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2012:06:20:Imperium Hunów Bulwersator (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map in this article is totally incorrect, the Huns have never controlled southern Lithuania, Pomerania and Mecklenburg. There are not any hunnic artifacts found in the southern coast of Baltic Sea. Hoa binh (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term "Hunnic Empire" is used in academic work widely, see [18], [19], [20], a gscholar search turns up lots more. I've yet to see a source which disputes the existence of this empire other than the ones mentioned in the nomination. I'm seeing a balance of academic sources in favour of this existing. A mention in the article about whether this is an empire or confederation might be merited. Even if most sources said that this is a confederation rather than an empire, a simple move rather than deletion would be the best solution. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination states perceived problems with the article, but not grounds for deletion. The term "Hunnic Empire" appears to be in pervasive use, and a quick-and-dirty search finds many more hits at GBooks and GScholar for "Hunnic Empire" than for "Hunnic confederation"; in any event these issues appear to belong at the article's talk page, not here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "more hits at GBooks and GScholar for "Hunnic Empire" than for "Hunnic confederation"" - how it changes anything? Hunnic confederation is a redlink. Bulwersator (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Hunnic empire" is often used, mostly beacuse it is convenient to have another synonym, but the fact that such a state exist is a different question. First of all it wasn't state, much less an epmire. And I advise read Maenchen-Helfen, who said that Dacian king Burebista held almost the same territory, and what? [21] We make an article Dacian Empire? This article only doubled the informations we have in "Huns"--Krzychu (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stated grounds for deletion are that certain historians think the Huns had a loose configuration rather than a proper empire, and that isn't enough of a reason to delete the article. It's entirely proper to mention a dispute between notable historians in the article, and maybe you want to propose moving the article to a different title, but AfD isn't for disputes about content or article titles. This should be discussed on the article talk page, and you should try to reach consensus about a move, rename or other change there, where experts are likely to be found and the debate is less rushed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if we admit that it wasn't any "empire" of the Huns, we don't have any reasons for having another article that describe that federation of trbes than "Huns". Yes, the "Huns" is proper article about that tribal federation, and this article is completely superfluous. We write about the same topic two times.--Krzychu (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much discussion has occurred in the recent past regarding whether to merge this article into the Huns article. Arguments put forward dealt with whether the Huns really had an empire or not. No consensus was achieved. While recognizing that the article has some incorrect information, while recognizing that the map is poor, these problems in themselves do not constitute a reason to delete. I bemoan what I see as the same exact merge arguments coming up again in this AfD. As I stated in the RfC on the merge, the article is in great need of improvement by those with the time and knowledge. Outright deletion is premature. Merge is still appropriate if the article cannot be adequately improved. If you see something that is incorrect, please feel free to edit it. That is the Wikipedia way. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Sborsody has also mentioned, few months ago there was a quite long discussion about this (Merge with Huns and delete) on the Talk page of the article, where several pro and contra arguments were presented, but no consensus was reached, even though an RfC was also initiated. I also agree that the article needs improvement, but in itself it is not enough for a deletion and the topic is certainly notable. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term Hunnic Empire does have WP:N as a generic term. Perhaps this article could be merged with Huns as a previous contributor suggested. --Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Huns, redirect to that page - while this article describes a real and notable entity, it has no information beyond what is, appropriately, in Huns and Attila, nor can it ever do so. There is no more recorded information and given the tenuous and illiterate nature of the empire, quite possibly there never was. Pace User:Bulwersator above, the article being poor is not a reason to delete; pace Colapeninsula, the exact nature of Attila's realm isn't the issue, "empire" is certainly close enough. The term is used in both in Huns and Attila. But this article is redundant and can only remain so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources including some historical encyclopedias and pass WP:N, nominator did a WP:BADFAITH nomination. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite funny that you are randomly accusing of bad faith and linking to Wikipedia:Assume good faith at the same time Bulwersator (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no doubt in my mind that the nomination is in good faith, accusations of bad faith should either be backed up with evidence or not made at all. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Huns. The only excuse for having an article like this would be if it were providing further detail, which reasons of brevity omitted from that article. I have not checked how much additional detail there is, I I supect it is not much (if anything). This is not capable of being a parent article to "Huns". I have no doubt of the author's good faith, but it is covering much the same ground is the other (better) article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I guess the European editors can't bear that Asians ruled over them in history. It is just the truth and the history and it should be kept. Huns are Mongols and Huns were in Europe. 67.190.36.6 (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You sir have a very good sense of humor. I lolled... 2A02:2308:0:0:216:3EFF:FEED:42EF (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is always great when you meet some imperialist who have better humour, if he could call "Empire" something with which he identify yourself. And, after all, Huns are probably turkic people, but have nothing in common with Mongols.--Krzychu (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No question, this term is also used by the history of science. The Huns article should contain the history of the people, while the Hunnic Empire article about the political entity. So I can not support merger of two topics. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a very reasonable content fork of the Huns article. Perhaps merge information about the Hunnic Empire from the Huns article to this one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor debate and move it to Talk:Hunnic Empire?

It seems that repeated AfDs are getting no consensus. Perhaps if we can reach consensus on the intended scope of this article we can come up with something acceptable to everyone? What, in other words, is reasonably described as the Hunnic Empire, and what is more appropriately described as the activities of politically divided groups with some degree of cultural unity? I'd suggest that the Hunnic Empire is the realm of Attila, including the nature, basis, results, and extent of his rule, and the rest of their history is the history of the Huns, but we may debate this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines through a lack of significant coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IzPack

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

This article cites two sources: the product's own website and a press release printed in a trade magazine. Neither is independent. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any coverage. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. IMHO it seems an important software. This hasn't been said before but it has also an interwiki link pointing to the Spanish wikipedia where no deletion is pending.--Hiddenray (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of its level of importance, it is obviously not neutral and is written like an advertisement.--b1naryatr0phy (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (babble) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 08:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG, although this might get us part of the way to GNG, I'm just not finding enough GNG-worthy sourcing to keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No overwhelming argument to keep that would neccessitate that we ignore the subject's request. v/r - T P 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Take your pick: SNOW delete or CSD A7--article makes no believable claim of importance. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisso Courtis

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

A writer of a diet book and a singer "Signed with CD Baby". No reliable references. Supposed reliable refs of Reuters or Yahoo are press releases. Published his book with Publish Green, a self-service publisher of ebooks. His music, well, CD Baby doesn't "sign" artists. For the cherry on top, we have SPAs. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely no independent and reliable sources to show that this guy, his music, or his diet are notable. The sources on the article are almost all primary press releases or otherwise unusable. The sole source that isn't primary is Diets in Review, but that doesn't look like it's a reliable source. Even if it is, that's only one review and that's not enough to show notability. The article is such a mess that you could probably get it speedied under it being overly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the above reasons. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the above reasons and oh so many more. Ignoring 871 of the 873 tags on the article, dude shows no indication of notability under any criteria and (due to the sources being all primary and/or unreliable) fails GNG as well. Really: once it's tagged as reading like a fan site, many of the rest (weasel words, tone, personal essay, peacock terms, neutrality, etc.) are all implied. The horse has been sufficiently beaten. It is quite dead. No need to disembowel it, cut off the head, burn the remains and scatter the ashes. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole point of the number of tags is to show that the article is probably irretrievable. It can't be speedied because there is an assertion of notability, which is what is needed to decline a speedy. I left the notability tag off for that reason. It warranted a second opinion, so having looked at it I placed the tags with a view to a second pair of eyes possibly nominating it if they agreed there was no hope for the article and the subject was not notable, which happened. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's irretrievable, bring it to AfD; don't throw every possible tag at it - that is redundant and makes you look silly. LadyofShalott 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I didn't throw "every possible tag at it"! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The tags alert other editors to the various issues. Sometimes second looks are good before beginning a process like AfD. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, tags are one of the least effective ways to alert editors there is an issue with an article, adding 13 tags does not make it 13 times more likely to be improved. Summer is right, if you think that the article doesn't hold water and should be deleted, do your research and nominate it for AfD. If it should be tagged, pick the ones that apply the most. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my experience is exactly the opposite. Look at all the articles with one, two, three tags that never get looked at. "Tagged since July 2007"!. Every time (and I have done it about half a dozen times; I don't do it every day) I have placed a large number of tags on a page when I have spotted problems but haven't had time to do the research myself, the article has either been improved or nominated by someone who has had time to do the research and take the appropriate action. This article is a case in point! Harry the Dog WOOF 07:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When editors with a significant amount of experience (like, multiple times more) make a suggestion it's a good idea to listen. The tags are ridiculous, and if you really thought they were valid in the first place you should have CSDed it (a claim of importance has to be believable) or nominated it for AfD. If you don't have to time to look carefully enough to make the proper decision, don't take the time to tag it. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons above. The Vancouver-based references are fairly obscure and I couldn't find any local sources to support them; they're so tenuous that they don't seem to lend any notability in my opinion. Ubelowme (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion of non-notable writer/ non-notable musician. LadyofShalott 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources to establish this person's overall notability. Press releases are not the same thing. The article reads like a self promotion with online sources linked to the subject. --Artene50 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources Davewild (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katan Technologies

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage by third party sources. Cannot verify the content by EPA and other conference papers/white papers, but it is unlikely that it will specifically reference Katan Technologies. Cntras (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was already taken down once today per CSD G11, and Google doesn't seem to return much more than directory listings, ads, and other self-published paraphernalia. -- WikHead (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just can't find the reliable coverage that would show that received a depth of coverage or really any coverage at all. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this earlier, no indication of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through some open gov records, I found out that Katan Technologies has already patented and trademarked its biospada product in the United States Patent Office (USPTO) (registration no. 85388860). I ran through Google, and there are some other sources, which appear reliable to me, just not listed in the article itself. And I've seen its Singapore hq before. I think that EPA content and the other sources listed are reliable enough. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikHead. Specs112 t c 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I am simply a student who is trying to understand how to correctly write a company article. I looked at the templates for other chemical companies such as Ecolab and Diversey, Inc. and thus followed. I just added access to the two documents that were previously inaccessible; does that better the situation? The company is legitimate, and, like Bonkers The Clown mentioned earlier, it is registered in the USPTO. Please help me understand how I can improve this page. SoniaS13 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a business directory. Millions of things have been patented and trademarked that have never been notable & never will be, and many more that might be some day but are not yet. Sonia513, the way to write a business article is to first find a business to write about that is so important that it is covered by multiple secondary reliable published sources discussing it. Once you have those sources, ask me or anyone of us in this discussion or at WP:Articles for Creation for assistance. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown priest

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

A non-notable term heading a list of mostly non-notable people... and calling them Nazis. As far as I can tell, the term was invented (or at least popularized) by historian Kevin Spicer in his 2008 book that is the source of this list, and it has not come into general use (check Google yourself). The article consists mostly of a long list of German priests who were associated with the Nazis, the vast majority of whom are redlinks. Talk page has comments indicating some of the names may be incorrect or include priests who later spoke out against the Nazis. I'm not sure that we should be vilifying dozens of otherwise unknown people without any of the context which Spicer probably includes in his book. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by Kevin Spicer. It hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. A long list of accusatory red links sourced to a single book is very problematic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that most of the list members are currently redlinked says nothing about their notability and even less about the notability of the term. [Specifically, it looks like there are six brown priests who already have Wikipedia articles, which is more than when I started this in 2009.] A neologism coined in a book by a professor and published in an academic press stands on quite a different footing from the neologisms the cited policy deals with. Google Scholar and Google Books indicate that the term has been used by others as well. That some of these people are argued (on the talk page, usually without sources) to have positive traits as well does not dispute that all of these individuals are "brown priests"—as Spicer defines the term. If a few of the links need to be piped to disambugate, that also does not suggest the remedy of deletion. Finally, as for the notability of the individual priests, the fact that they are currently redlinks is not dispositive. Many of the receive extended discussion in Spicer's book and elsewhere. Savidan 04:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other secondary sources that I see using the term are other works by Spicer and 2 print-on-demand books that probably contain reprints of the Wikipedia article. Oh, wait, actually, I found one article, a 2008 article in "Holocaust Studies". Could you provide any other titles or links? Brianyoumans (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose we live in the age of declining attention spans, so here are a few to get you started. These are reviews of Spicer: [22] [23] [24] [25]. The fact that the term gets picked up on in book reviews published in scholarly journals counts for a great bit. These, as far as I can tell, are totally independent (or at least do not cite Spicer nearby): [26] [27] [28]. If you do not have access to any of these links, snippets can be found in the original links I posted. For what it's worth, it appears Spicer uses the term in both his 2007 and 2008 books, although only the latter is currently cited in the article. Savidan 05:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another book review using the term: [29]. This one does not show up on Google Scholar or Books. Savidan 05:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the term is used in reviews or summaries of Spicer's book. That accounts for sources 1-4, 6, and 8 above, at a brief look. #5 is the one independent example of usage I cited above. #7 is a reference to a "Brown Priest" in a Sean O'Casey play, not related at all. Honestly, the term seems like a neologism, and not a very successful one at that.Brianyoumans (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know where you are getting this idea that book reviews published in scholarly journals don't count for anything. Savidan 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As a source for an article, they are fine. But when you are trying to figure out whether a word or phrase has come into common usage, having it appear in reviews of the original source that coined it is pretty useless - it just means that the term was used prominently in the book.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to add more verbiage to this, but... The more I look at this list, the more I think it is a bad idea. A few of these people might even still be alive, which would make this a WP:BLP issue. We are taking one scholar's list of names and calling them all "Nazis", essentially. Without the biographical info from Spicer's book, there is room for confusion - one link was going to Joseph Muller (priest), who was executed by the Nazis, and a few minutes research convinced me that a different Joseph Muller was probably intended by Spicer. We are also accepting Spicer's judgements on people - some of the existing links go to people I would agree are "brown priests" by Spicer's definition, but some are priests who had more complex relationships with the Nazi regime. Who do you call a "brown priest"? Joseph Lortz, for instance, apparently left the party by 1938 and removed material favorable to the Nazis from his works. Placing his name next to that of more committed Nazis is problematic.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if some are still alive (very, very unlikely, and entirely speculative), WP:BLP was never meant to prevent the citation of a material to a reliable source, in this case a book by a professor published in a university press. "We" are not calling these people Nazis; Spicer is, and the article is only citing him. As for Muller, his WP article is currently entirely unsourced, and thus a rather flimsy basis on which to claim Spicer is in error. Nor is being executed by the Nazis entirely inconsistent with having been a Nazi sympathizer. By this logic, you could demand the removal of all references to Nazism from every victim of the Night of the Long Knives. As for Lortz, the fact that he may have repented and changed his ways is something that should be noted in his article, not something that should be used to erase his prior conduct from history. Savidan 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see my comments re Muller on the article talk page. I haven't referenced his article, but I'm pretty sure it could be referenced, and I found a reference to most likely a different Josef Muller, who is probably Spicer's "brown priest". The point is, without more than just names in a list, mistakes like this are going to happen. And if this article isn't Wikipedia calling these people Nazis (or Nazi sympathizers), why isn't it an article on Spicer's book? And if it was to be an article on Spicer's book, how can we quote so much copyrighted material? I think we have to be responsible for the material, and I don't think we want to be. Even if none of these people are alive, their families certainly are, and these are serious accusations.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The answer to first your question is that Wikipedia never takes a view; it only reports what is stated by others. The answer to your second is that Spicer has no copyright in a list of names (see Feist v. Rural), and if he did it would be fair use. Your core concern seems to be that you disagree with Spicer. Instead of out and saying that, you have chosen every possible pretext, no matter how frivolous: notability, BLP, and now copyright. Savidan 21:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't read Spicer and I have intended no criticism of him or his work. I don't even remember how I happened across this article - I might have hit "random article", I do that sometimes. My objections are with including his list in Wikipedia, without any accompanying explanatory information, including lots of non-notable people - lists of people in Wikipedia article should be lists of notable people. And including under "brown priest", which is not a notable term. And the fact that these are serious accusations to make about people, and we want to make sure we don't end up linking to the wrong article.Brianyoumans (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:BLP issues and a lack of consistent usage in academic sources (just try a Google Scholar search). --BDD (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. The list of priests is based on one person's work and as others have pointed out, is problematic at best. Also as pointed out, the term 'brown priest' has had limited use outside of Spicer's work or those reviewing it....William 17:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, the fact that the article is based on a single source, the vagueness of the term, and uncertainties about which person some of the entries in Spicer's book refer to. Committed Nazis are being mixed together with people who joined briefly but left in the 1930s. I would support a list of "Catholic priests who were members of the Nazi party," if it gave sourced membership dates. Red links should definitely not be included. WP:BLP does not seem to apply to entries in the list with articles. -- 202.124.74.88 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS. A term being used in a book review isn't an indication of its acceptance or wide use within the academic community. It just indicates that the term is used in the book. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely written from a primary source. We already have List of Nazis (A–E) where each line entry is referenced. I checked, and we do not have an article on Kevin P. Spicer. A look at the first three pages of the Google Scholar, I only see "brown priest" being used in the context of "Kevin P. Spicer". Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is in many respects the wrong way to do it. The concept of Nazi priests is a suitable subject for an article, and Spicer's book would be one of the main sources to be used for it. Any list of individuals included there would indicate the actual nature of the involvement, and use more than a single source. . This article, on the other hand, uses a non-standard title,based primarily on a single book, gives no content or references outside of that book, & lists people with varied degrees of guilt as if they were equal, thus removing all the informative value from the list and violating NPOV. I urge that Savidan or whoever is interested write that better article DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Guy

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Amazon.com lists it as #331,339 in popularity, meaning that it's not at all popular, likely explaining why I could not find a single review of this book anywhere (not even non-RS reader comments.) Further, the article was written by Mikepjones and the book was written by Gordy Jones, suggesting a likely WP:COI. Finally, the article reads like an WP:Advertisement. Msnicki (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure Gordy is a nice guy, but... I looked at the web page, and I think Beavers Pond Press is basically a vanity press. This is a self-published book - a well-promoted one, but I see no sign it has seen much interest. Non-notable.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was going to suggest that this be redirected to Gordy Jones, but I'm kind of not seeing a lot on his page that says that he's notable. You might want to nominate him in this same AfD for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, saw that someone else has already done it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sources to show that this self-published book is notable in the slightest. Being self-published doesn't automatically mean no notability, but it does mean that it's going to be more likely that it won't have sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BKCRIT, in order to establish the notability of a book, it must be shown "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." My Google, Google News and Google News Archive searches of "Baseball Guy Gordy Jones" found the following: (1) nothing but brief, routine newspaper coverage of book signings and the like, mostly in the St. Paul newspaper; (2) promotional/advertising coverage on venders' websites like Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc.; (3) coverage on baseball-related blogs. It is pretty clear that the book is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in independent sources, as required by the applicable Wikipedia notability guideline for books. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and nom CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProCity Claim

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

Article was previously speedy deleted (A7), but has now been recreated and when nominated for A7 speedy was despeedied, hence we are at AfD. Non-notable teenager musician article created by COI editor (see [30] and [31]). The "label" is an electronic distribution program with Island Def-Jam Distribution is a free distribution program anyone can join (See [32]) so amounts to a vanity press for music. I have searched for reliable source coverage of both ProCity Claim and Alex Gilbert and just find non-reliable source listings such as IMDB that look awfully similar to the content produced here on Wiki, suggesting a similar submission occurred there as well. Overall it appears that this is an attempt to use wiki for self-promotion, which is not the intended purpose of wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I can't even find any listener reviews. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent WP:RS Youtube doesn't count here. --Artene50 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to Google News, I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found no sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Like others here, my searches yield nothing close to a reliable source to support notability.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not reached the notable stage yet. NealeFamily (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salted due to threats of pointy recreation. If notability can ever be established, then it can be unsalted but until then... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arka language

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

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

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

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

Page does not meet the criteria for a notable article (ie verifiable secondary sources) and reads like an advertisement written by the language's author. Finlay (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's already been some page vandalism from what I can only assume are fans of the language, since they're saying things like "it's no use deleting it, cos our master isn't interested in wikipedia thing and we will rewrite the article in the future. you're useless". I would recommend that if this gets deleted, that it get salted just for the threats of re-adding it again and again. Might be worth looking into getting the page protected just to keep the vandalism from continuing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I searched for sources and unless there's any in Japanese (since there's a book published in Japanese), then I'm going to say that there's just no reliable sources out there about this language. There's a ton of non-reliable sources that were added by people who are a fan of the language, but popularity does not equal notability. Ultimately this is just something someone made up one day (even though it was back in the 90s) and it has yet to achieve notability per Wikipedia's standards. Due to the removal of the AfD box and the statements of "we'll just re-add it", I recommend salting the article to protect against its creation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like an advertisement for the language, rather than an encyclopaedic entry. If this language deserves a page, it should be rewritten from scratch and provide some independent references that shows it's notability. 1700-talet (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt All the current content is by one SPA who has been very disruptive, insulting editors and trying to "own" the article, removing any additions by other editors, especially tags, such as the tag for this AFD. However, the question of notability of the Arka Language must be considered separately from the conduct of this editor.
Several editors, including very experienced editors NawlinWiki and Rich Farmbrough have expressed concerns about notability, and I searched for some before reinstating the notability tag, which was repeatedly removed. Like Tokyogirl79 above, I could not find anything in a reliable source. A basic Google search for "Arka Language" produces 3,550 matches, but (other then Wikipedia and its mirrors) these all appear to be self-published or promotional.
I tried to explain Wikipedia's requirements to the SPA editor, in both edit summaries and on his user page, inviting them to supply references from independent reliable sources. The first time, the SPA added the initial paragraph containing lots of self-references. I can only assume that, as someone who is so keen to promote this subject, cannot come up with reliable sources to demonstrate notability, there are none.
Returning to the SPA editor, given the statement "it's no use deleting it, cos our master isn't interested in wikipedia thing and we will rewrite the article in the future" it should also be salted. Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ARKA HAS ENOUGH NOTABILITY AND IT WAS A FAN WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE. TROLLS FROM ZBB ARE TYRING TO DELETE ARKA'S PAGE. IT'S JUST A HARASSMENT. THEY ARE JUST JEALOUS OF THIS ELABORATE CONLANG, SO DO NOT DELETE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouehfds (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, playtime's over. Back to Area 51 with you or the asylum director will have to order more electroshock. EEng (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say mind the words, but totally agree with the sentiment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is... what are "Trolls from ZBB"? Is ZBB one of the Impotent Iconoclasts of Outer Zamboni? 05:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Zompist.com#The Zompist Bulletin Board is my guess. —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arka has enough notability. If you deny it, then you have to prove it before deleting the article. And concerning the "advertising" things, how about Verdurian, Ithkuil and other conlangs? You are going to delete a conlang which was made by an Asian while let other advertising European conlangs without notability remain still. That's not fair. If you delete the article, you have to be fair to delete other unworthy conlang's article. (Unsigned comment by Ouehfds)

No, we don't have to prove it's non-notable; you have to prove it is. See WP:BURDEN. And please spare us the crap about Asian vs. European. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more notability is shown: I'm from the ZBB or Zompist Bulletin Board referred to above, and I admit I'm somewhat divided on what to do with this article. It's true there has been a lot of work in this conlang; I've never seen an artlang dictionary with that level of detail (let alone one with as many entries as the author claims, ~14 000, though I can't verify that).

At the same time, though, I think questioning its notability is justified. Yes, I respect its work, but Wikipedia doesn't hold my own personal opinion in such a high esteem—I don't determine this. It's possible to find third-party sources discussing Verdurian because the West has a growing conlanging community spread on the Internet in the form of forums, mailing lists, web 1.0 personal websites, and the LCS; Ithkuil has even been discussed among some Russian linguists; while there's probably none whatsoever for Arka because Japan doesn't have such a thing or it's very small and in its infancy. It's the eternal question and clash regarding "notability": just how comprehensive of things created and known does Wikipedia want to be? I'd insist that third-party sources need to be found to show there's something produced by a community, even if just in Japan, that shows this conlang is notable (things can only be notable to other people after all!). To this I should add the wording, which reads like an advertisement... if kept it should be changed. Otherwise, it would need to be deleted.--Serafín33 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 18:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Stranger (album)

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

The musician on the album does not have her own Wiki page and no other pages link to this album. LongLiveMusic (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...neither of which are deletion criteria. The question is whether peaking at 32 on a national album chart or 7 on the New Zealand artist chart is sufficiently notable. Caveat: I'll fix the #2 reference link next, so that it actually does go to the week in question. Dru of Id (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; chart listings clearly pass WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but rename~~ Delete or merge as Annah Mac (the artist); ~~then~~ edit this article into a section there. The artist has a charted album; per WP:MUSICBIO, "A musician or...singer...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:...2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." By contrast, per WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." So the album cannot currently survive on its own but can be a section at the notable artist's article. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. Actually, albums can exist without articles on the corresponding artist. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but an album must be notable independent of the artist to survive PRODding, and merely charting does not in itself constitute an album's notability. Notability for the artist actually is constituted by charting. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The artist would seem to have no notability except for this album, and the album does not satisfy the criteria of being recorded by a notable artist. Seems like a weak case of circular-referencing where no independent notability exists. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the guidelines. There's no circularity. The artist is presumed notable for having a hit album. That rule doesn't mention that the album has to be notable. Notability guidelines commonly use achievements to quantify if someone is likely to be famous, well-known, or important, and hence notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their every achievement deserves an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. It charted and there's coverage. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] The saddest thing about this nomination is that the nominator did not provide a valid reason for deleting the article. Till 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Till. Passes or notability bar. And I agree with him about the invalid nominator's rationale. --Cavarrone (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yosimar Reyes

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

Notability not asserted. The links provided don't help either; none of the references would indicate this poet should be notable enough for his article. Click on them to see. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 06:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only do the links not establish notability, there are two links from Lexis Nexus that purport to contain a San Jose Mercury News article - however, only lead to a search page thereon. I see some peacockishness, but that is not a reason to delete unto itself - the unreliable sources are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this guy is marginal at best, but I found enough links pointing to the SJ Mercury site to convince me that the article is simply expired, it was there at one point. Various sites had excerpts or summaries of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the material is sufficient for notability . The over-expansive article is also a concern, and very close to G11. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the material seems sufficient for notability -- especially the Variety award. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Rook

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent sources to establish notability. Rads more like a bio/self-promotion piece. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has greatly overstated Rook's non-notability. The name "John Rook" isn't readily searchable because it combines a common first name with a regular English word. Try searching this way. This individual has appeared in memoirs by Tommy James and Rush Limbaugh, and has been cited by magazines (eg Billboard) and awarded by industry associations. IMHO, needs improvement but meets WP:CREATIVE. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with access to these resources add them to the article so as to document the notability?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not difficult to find sources for this person. Just click on the search links above and you'll soon find books such as This business of radio programming; Pittsburgh's Golden Age of Radio; WCFL, Chicago's voice of labor. Warden (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets notability guidelines as a notable person, who has reliable sources online about him. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jepson

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

Mr Jepson is without a doubt a well-known potter, so much so that at least one of his works is in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. It may be that an article for Mr Jepson may not meet general or specific criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried hard to search but it's at best inconclusive. Google books gives results in magazines like Craft Horizons and Ceramics monthly, but they're not viewable online. There's a review of one of his DVDs in Video rating guide for libraries, Volume 5 from Lisa Forma, Rangeley Productions, AIMS Media, but again it's only snippet view. Aside from that there's some stuff in websites like Ceramic Arts Daily which I'm not sure meets WP:RS and a few brief references[39][40][41]. A thorough search of Florida newspapers might show more, but for useful info you'll have to go to print magazines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian should be enough by itself, but we also need enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article, and that's very weak right now. I found some coverage of him in old local newspapers but most of it is not very in-depth: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what David E. found. We canpt write as good an article as we'd like, but since we can demonstrate what it is that he is notable for, it's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ancient Old Jade. consensus by now seems clear about where to redirect to DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep-Fat-Oily White Jade

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

Apparent neologism; the only sources I could find are mirrors of the single source cited by this article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be an accidental neologism for mutton fat jade, which is actually mentioned (and cited from NYT) in Jade already. There's also an article on Nephrite (sounds like kidney fat, doesn't it); and "White jade" and "Yangzhi jade" are also common terms (e.g. The Telegraph which also mentions "Mutton fat jade") so they may deserve at least their own Redirects also. The sheep/mutton fat jade has plenty of possible sources e.g. Timeless Jade, China Briefing, White Jade Carvings at British Auctions, and helpful blogs (I know) like Mutton fat white jade. Possible actions would include rename to Mutton fat jade, or redirect to one of Jade, Nephrite or for that matter Chinese jade. Yeah, it's a bit of a muddle already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Nephrite that Egyptian chick? EEng (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of looks like a content fork. My accidental neologism, do you mean this may be a translation error? Roodog2k (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I do, but I wasn't going to be so unkind as to say so, given the likely input from non-native speakers. And you're probably right about the content fork. I think a set of redirects (MFJ -> Nephrite, WJ ditto) could sort this out nicely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Redirect: Rename to Mutton fat jade, which is a widely-used term, and make that a Redirect to Nephrite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here worth saving; the topic is already well-covered in numerous articles about jade, as noted above. In particular, the contents of this article duplicates that in Ancient Old Jade (which badly needs editing, but that's not an AfD issue). No redirect is needed. -- 202.124.75.87 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- This is a very specific noun — a definite thing. There seem to be a massive number of hits for "Sheep-Fat-Oily White Mutton Jade." It's over my head, but I'm solidly convinced that this is any encyclopedic topic, regardless of the limitations of this particular article. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Whoops, IP202 is on it, this is a fork of Ancient Old Jade, which includes a section on sheep-fat-oily white jade. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the catch, though: it didn't until this set of edits. Promotion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One editor desperately trying to introduce fringe material to wikipedia any way he can? Hands up if you've seen that pattern before...redirect this and remove the information added to Ancient Old Jade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite: Big Guns

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

This is a non-notable event. It has no long term significance and the sources are routine sports reporting.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk Page there is a tag for a previous AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite 1 (event). The name is slightly different so I don't know if the scope of the article is the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. This event was also known as ProElite 2, but the link on the talk page was to ProElite 1. Jakejr (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK that helps. So the consensus on ProElite 1 was Keep - is ProElite 2 less notable?Peter Rehse (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote in that AfD, but I would have voted delete on ProElite 1 as well. ProElite 3 was later deleted as non-notable. I looked at the AfD for ProElite 1 and I see that many of those who voted keep were later blocked (The Bachmann Editor Overdrive, Temporary for Bonaparte, BigzMMA), so I think this needs to be decided with a fresh look by unblocked editors. I think the issues arguing for deletion are WP:EVENT/WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Jakejr (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how this one plays out and if delete revisit ProElite 1.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event fails both WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. This is just another fight card for a second tier MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cited WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT at the previous AfD and nothing has changed. Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Ponte

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

There is some debate if we should have an article on this fellow. I declined a speedy and a PROD, but given the desire for deletion I thought I'd put it up at AfD.

A news search would seem to indicate that he meets WP:N but it's not clear he meets WP:CRIME. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ponte does not meet WP:CRIME, he is only known for owning a carting company. --Vic49 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Significant coverage: NY Daily News, NY Times
- Less significant but non-trivial coverage: NY Daily News (again), Forgotten NY, CNN, NYmag.
I'd say he meets WP:N. I'm less sure of WP:CRIME. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your references same the same thing "Ponte was in the carting industry". You say he meets WP:N under what criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people)? --Vic49 (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:N simply requires multiple reliable and independent sources that have a reasonable degree of detail. That bar is easily met here. There is a significant amount of reporting on the subject (as shown above). Hobit (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ponte did own the largest carting company in NYC, which was involved in a well publicized battle with outside competitors. However, there is very little source information on Ponte's individual role in all this. He might have been a front man for someone else. Don't think he meets the notability or crime criteria. 74.69.41.13 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But he does seem to meet WP:N, yes? Hobit (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIME and not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still vote Delete --Vic49 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable criminal. The references cited above are quite sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with user DGG. references are sufficient and reliable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Loizou

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY case of WP:TOOSOON as he has yet to make a 1st team apperance.Seasider91 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – oh, those Cypriot youngsters again... no significant coverage and no appearances in a fully professional league make the article fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY respectively. – Kosm1 fent 13:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be a good goalkeeper in future but right now this article has WP:CBALL problems. --Artene50 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Lips

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed the first AFD as "delete" and was about to ring this up as a G4. However, the first AFD did not have a lot of participation. One bolded "delete" !vote and one comment leaning toward deletion. I'm hoping for a stronger consensus this time. The nominator's rationale at the first AFD still stands. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAND--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still WP:TOOSOON. They haven't quite "arrived" yet. DarkAudit (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Guardian and BBC, and mainly Chorley Guardian give us enough for a well-sourced stub, and let's face it, it's very likely that more coverage will appear to allow it to be expanded, given that Sony will be pushing them in the media when the album's close to release. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was rightly deleted in the last discussion, but that Guardian article has appeared since then and I think that's enough to tip the scales. I think the article could do with stripping down as some of the sources used are inappropriate, but I'm sure more coverage will be appear in the future. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet to release their debut album, but played regularly on a national radio station, and a few bits of independent coverage already out there. I reckon this just about meets WP:BAND now. — sparklism ^hey! 13:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparklism; just enough coverage now to meet WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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