Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Keep due to publications and RS coverage L Faraone 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Bhatnagar

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

Unremarkable surgeon, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be doing what most surgeons in his line of work do. No evidence of notabilty. Fails WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello - With due respect, I don't believe he is just a regular surgeon. I speak this from experience through my dad several years ago. Some quick research and this is what I found. Wikipedia is about people contributing based on what is notable in local, national and international society. My favorite Wikipdia pillar is that it is lean and open to conversation and changes. Reference: The five pillars of Wikipedia

He is the leading practitioner of a special form of heart surgery: "Minimally Invasive Beating Heart Surgery" and brought this practice to Trillium Health Centre. He is handful, I under 4, so that means about 26.5 Million may need him to save their lives. (26.5 Million Number of non-institutionalized adults with diagnosed heart disease in USA; There are ~565 Million People in North America and if based on US stats even if 10% have some heart disease, then we have ~56 Million people who could use one of these handful doctors to save their lives - I think having the skill and expertese in a field that could save many more lives is worthy of notice). Perhaps I may have missed some other points of view and welcome input. http://www.trilliumhealthcentre.org/programs_services/cardiac_services/mississauga/cardiacSurgery_beatingHeartSurgery.php
He is the chief of staff to over 1200 doctors. http://www.trilliumhealthcentre.org/about/leadership/senior_leadership.php
He is often in news and here is one I found online. I have often seen him on several news channels on TV: http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/11/06/16003036.html
He is a leading researcher in his field. Some scientific journals here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Gopal+Bhatnagar%22 (Goes by name Dr. Gopal Bhatnagar, Gopal Mohan Bhatnagar, GM Bhatnagar, Bhatnagar GM, Bhatnagar G)
He is winner of 2012 UFE Spring Session (grandmasters category): http://ufeshows.com/0/?page_id=1877# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.40.68 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.231.40.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable researcher and doctor indeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.144.239 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meets criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO, having won this award that has its own WP article (see last sentence of article). But then I had a closer look and found out that they gave out a fairly large number of these awards. Still, maybe.^King Jakob _C2 00:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A prominent surgeon and well-renowned South Asian Canadian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.21.58 (talk • contribs)
Very weak keep He may pass WP:SCHOLAR based on his cites at Google Scholar, although in all of those paper he is merely one of a thundering herd of authors, neither first nor last. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO due to insufficient independent coverage. The award appears to be too common to count as a "well-known and significant award or honor". --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I note that earlier this month the Credit Valley Hospital Foundation announced the endowment of a Research Chair in his name to honour him: (http://trilliumhealthpartners.ca/newsroom/Pages/Newsreleases.aspx) This is indeed a rare accolade, and one of the highest honours, an established teaching or academic hospital can confer, certainly more significant than the jubilee award dished out by the thousands. Therefore, all things considered, I think the article should be kept. It seems he does pass WP:GNG after all.--Zananiri (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a University of Toronto medical student. Dr. Bhatnagars name has come up several times. I understand he just stepped down from his Chief of Staff duties to focus on new initiatives. I would love to do my residency with him. Minimally invasive beating heart surgery is something i believe can save a lot more lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.136.30 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Almost none of the keep votes above are grounded in policy, and to avoid a potential WP:NAC, this needs further commentating

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret ^account 23:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had his accomplishments/awards been recognized by independant sources this might squeek by but the research chair named in his honor is only revealed through a press release. As mentioned previously the Jubilee Medal is given to many recepients, apparently 24 in 2013. If he had pioneered beating heart surgery rather than being a practitioner of it that might count. Unfortunately he doesn't meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this source indicates Bhatnagar performed the first cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in Canada in 2004: http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1592027--former-hospital-chiefs-honoured-with-research-chairs Seems to meet WP:GNG. In any case, it is not de rigueur for institutions to issue such press releases or for the press to report on such Chairs being established at teaching hospitals or universities. More important is the fact that the Chairs are usually there long after the people in whose names they were created have left this world.--Zananiri (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scholar is indicating an h-index of at least 17. This Toronto Star article seems to have sufficient converage to significantly expand the article for Bhatnager's early life. Spinning Spark 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trillium appears to be a notable health centre, he has set a record, and appears to have just enough coverage for WP:N. Revolution1221 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Electorate of Trier. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elector of Trier

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

Reason

This is just information copied and pasted out of an old encyclopaedia and does not really explain what the Elector of Trier did very well. There is a better article on the Electorate of Trier that this article would be better redirected to.Smeat75 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't looks like a particular bad article, and the 1911 EB always made 90% of those kind of articles. Moagim (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, just a duplicate of the other article. Everyking (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electorate of Trier. A lot of duplication between the two. Hypothetically, we could have a separate article Archbishop of Trier with coverage of those archbishops who weren't also electors (currently archbishop redirects to elector). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation is terrible. We have four highly overlapping articles: Roman Catholic Diocese of Trier, Archdiocese of Trier, Elector of Trier and Electorate of Trier. I vote for a redirect for this title. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rather REdirect this article to Electorate of Trier, which covers precisely the same ground. There is also a triplicate article Archdiocese of Trier, which initially also needs to be redirected to the same target, though there may possibly be a case for reinstating an article with that title to deal with the spiritual jurisdiction of the Archbishop-Elector. On the other hand, it may be better still to add a section to the target article, dealing with that issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electorate of Trier for now. At the moment, cover essentially the same material. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića

(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)

This has been tagged as a hoax. I don't think it's that, the "micronation" exists, at least in someone's head, but it is not notable. The first four references are deadlinks. The fifth is about a local town and does not mention the "republic"; the sixth is a short paragraph referring to the proprietor as a "witty caterer who did this marketing move so that his motel became one of the most popular in West Hercegovina." The current website of the "republic" is here and is mainly about the tourist attractions. Wikipedia is not here to help with marketing gimmicks. The bundled article is about the currency, and stands or falls with the main article. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Micronations ought to be presumed non-notable unless there is a lot of evidence to suggest their notability. Anybody can put up a website describing an imaginary country, but it takes some effort to get the real world to take more than momentary notice of it. Since most of the sources here are dead links, I suspect that this imaginary country has not yet achieved such notice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as failing WP:GNG based on lack of in depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. - Mr X 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. En.wiki is sinking into deletionism, as I see. The criteria of deadlinks is not the good reason for deletion. That means that You do not trust to the users that wrote that article, and to the admins and patrollers that previously checked this article. Shall we delete all the articles whose references turn dead(links)?
Some links are inactive now [1][2][3][4][5] (why haven't you checked the internet archives), but the last link is active.[6]
Why haven0t you checked the web archives? Or you find it easier to delete the others' work?
Here're the archived pages: [7] [8][9][10]. If you can't find something, ask. Do not require deletion. Or do the authors have to periodically check "their" pages, to see are they still there, since the "newbies" do not trust to previous users.
Again: Is this notable? Notable for whome? Maybe for your country, not. For this part of Europe, this is notable. SFOR was alarmed by some persons, and they arrived with armoured vehicles. Since they saw the joke nature of that project, they left. Serb magazines Nezavisne, B92 [11][12], Bosnian Serb PressOnline [13], Bosnia-Herzegovinan magazines Gracija and daily newspaper Dnevni avaz, Večernji [14], Oslobođenje [15] (see Google Cache) [16], Bosnia-Herzegovinan Croat portals Tomislavcity, Posusje Online [17], LJportal [18], Croportal [19] (see Google Cache), Croatian mountaineers society [20], Croatian geography magazine [21], Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija [22][23][24].
This microrepublic held the competition in lying and that was reported in daily newspapers.[25] [26], builletin of Croatian Heritage Foundation [27] (that's state organization, not some private foundation)
This text is possibly the text from another magazine [28].
These were their banknotes.[29]
Hajdučka Republika is also listed here.[30]
And finally, its ruler died in a traffic accident [31] few years ago. Now it is held international off-road rally memorial named after late ruler of this micronation, Vinko Vukoja Lastvić.[32] [33] (Part of Bosnia-Herzegovina rally championship, news from Croatian local TV [34])
As you see, it is not "unimportant", "nobody heard of", "exists solely in someone's head".
For something to be notable, it is not required to be on the front page of the New York Times, nor to be headline on the CNN. Kubura (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Some source examples include [35], [36], [37]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Often micro-nations with little or no sources are not notable however, though this article needs more, it only just has enough. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: I am not convinced. With insubstantial, "made up one day" subjects like micronations, particularly those made up as "joke projects" (to quote Kubura) or marketing ploys (to quote the last reference in the article), I think we need to be fairly demanding in comparing sources with the requirement of the GNG for significant, independent coverage. Of the three links supplied by Northamerica1000, the first is an interview dated 2007, whose words are recycled in this one of Kubura's refs, dated 2009, making it seem rather like a press release; the second is the website of the "Republic", the third is a list of equally insubstantial micronations like "West Antarctica"; the one we are considering is not even one of the list, but gets a two-line mention under West Antarctica. I have not yet looked at all those supplied by Kubura, but ones I have checked include entries in lists of micronations, or brief mentions in articles about car rallies. JohnCD (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more. This topic attracted the attention of the Turkish news agency Anadolu [38]. That news-story was transmitted here on Bosnian newssite Klix [39]. Interesting: see the date (published on 16.03.2013, 16 March 2013, few days ago); it seems that someone reads Wikipedia :).
Many micronation projects started as joke or as protest action against the inefficient (local) government, or at least, to draw the attention of the general public.
This project has survived. The daily newspapers, the internet portals and other media of the state importance wrote about this. And they still are. This is not just local news: the media from all peoples from Hercegovina and Bosnia are writing about this, as well as the neighbouring Croatia and Serbia. And Turkish news agency Anadolu. This went international.
This project lives its 11th year. It started cultural and sports manifestations.
This is not a project of a "lonesome child and his/hers friends in his/hers room" that lasted for few weeks and that only his very neighbours knew about that. Kubura (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In the universe of micronations, this one seems sufficiently notable. – SJ + 02:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not a hoax of the "Bob sits behind me in math class and has magic powers" sort, this isn't exactly truthful either. Fake country supposedly created to drum up business at a motel, not recognised be any other country (not even the one it's in). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Seems like an attempt to advertise a non-notable joke. The article on the micronation is just a cleaned-up machine translation of the article on the croatian wikipedia, with tons of unsourced assertions. Overall, both fail WP:GNG, especially the one on the fake currency. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems that the delete !voters thus far may not have actually analyzed available sources about the topic, the reliability of the sources, depth of coverage, etc. Perhaps some people don't particularly care for micronations, so let's delete the article about this one! Of course, I could be incorrect, but from an actual review of sources available about this topic in online sources, it appears to at least meets WP:N. This should probably be relisted (again) to allow more time for others to opine. Also, my !vote above and this comment is only about Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića; I haven't researched anything yet about Kubura (currency) that is co-nominated atop. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although these may meet the minimum threshold of notability, I'm still not convinced that they are significant enough to merit independent articles. I did my best to analyze the sources, and came to same conclusions as JohnCD. - Mr X 20:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lynas

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Prod declined by article creator without explanation. Ray^Talk 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has worked with some notable artists, but I'm unable to find evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gong show 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty good profile of his work in the sonicscoop article, but needs more to indicate notability. Fails WP:BIO. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SparkyLinux

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

Non-notable distribution of Linux. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All refs seem to be to the project website. Wikipedia is not a directory of software. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, I searched online and I couldn't find any third-party coverage by any reliable sources. - SudoGhost 11:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some external references --Pavroo (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those appear to be third-party reliable sources, only some blogs and primary sources. - Sudo Ghost 12:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Linux. Non-notable, plausible redirect term. Ducknish (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linux wouldn't be a good redirect target, since it would suggest that "SparkyLinux" is an alternate name of Linux, and there's absolutely nothing on Linux article that would explain otherwise. - Sudo Ghost 00:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platja Port d’es Torrent

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

advertising, largely unsourced The Banner talk 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable beach, overly promotional tone.Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – I have read this article through and can not see where this article could possible be accused of advertising. Its content is about a beach, a natural feature of this island. It is well referenced there is no reason for deletionDemax (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The promotional content can be removed, but I think the beach is notable enough as a geographic feature. Ducknish (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per WP's function function as a gazetteer, but still not entirely convinced it passes WP:GNG as its coverage in sources seems pretty sparse. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. I also believe this is technically a Blue Flag beach which makes it no small average beach. For example, while spain has many, Canada only has 11. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theis Molin

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

Not fully confident PRODing this (not sure why). Basically, it's a very poorly referenced article, that's horrendously formatted to boot. Even if this guy is notable, the article needs a total rewrite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find significant coverage anywhere, fails WP:FILMMAKER. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search turns up about a half dozen Danish language sources independent of the subject. Tough to assess notability via the machine translation but it is possible that there is something there, but as pointed out by the nom it would need a complete re-write, per WP:TNT I would say delete. J04n(talk page) 20:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author request, per last comment, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Search Occupancy

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

Neologism created by a company called iOPW; no independent sources or evidence that anyone else uses this term. See WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this term has not been recognized or validated by outside sources, I would like to take this opportunity to resubmit this at a later date under the guidelines of Wikipedia and maintain the highest level of quality content this wonderful encyclopedia has to offer.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spinning Spark 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dick and Enid Eyeington

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

WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT. The pair's only notability derives from their death, and it's not enough to maintain an article on. Ducknish (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely clear that is true. There seem to be five BBC articles about them and according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/6586725.stm "tributes were led by Oscar-winning director Lord Attenborough, actor Richard E Grant and political commentator Matthew Parris". Daily Telegraph said Lord Attenborough, a close friend of Mr Eyeington's, said last night he was was "desperately upset" at the news. "They were an inspirational couple, selfless and courageous," Although the publicity was about their death there are many dozens of pieces of material which strike me as much more obituary than simply news items. They got an obituary in the Times after all: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article2077379.ece --BozMo talk 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)talk 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the material shows that the event was of lasting importance, and to the best of my knowledge, it was not an event with worldwide or prolonged coverage. All the material about what they did during their lives comes from articles about their death. There is no coverage of any actions they took besides dying. Ducknish (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just took me two minutes to establish their death was covered by major newspapers (not scrapper websites, but de spiegel etc) in the UK, Austria, Germany, Somalia, Switerland, South Africa, India, Somaliland, & Eire. Indeed there is a feature interview in de speigel eight months before his death (see http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/swasiland-der-freund-der-kinder-a-231993.html) And you do not get obits just on the basis of a notable way of dying; to add to the times the guardian one is http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/oct/27/guardianobituaries.obituaries . The coverage ran in all major UK news sources lasted from 2003 (their death) to 2007 (when their murders were sentenced to death), with quite a few court updates (particularly in 2005) run in all the major papers and on the bbc. They may not have been prominent in the US, but the non US coverage was not short or local. --BozMo talk 04:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Cough cough. Somaliland is not part of Somalia?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep the obits demonstrate notability. Would consider splitting but they're so interconnected that this doesn't seem worthwhile. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they don't meet Wikipedia policies for an article on themselves or their murder, a merge to SOS Sheikh Secondary School, the school they re-established and ran, would be suitable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - needs better sourcing, not deletion. notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major news outlets don't run obituaries (as opposed to paid death notices) for non-notable people. This is reinforced with Der Speigel interview prior to their death. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM, these poor folks are only famous for being murdered. J04n(talk page) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an existing article can incorporate their murder, there is no claim to notability apart from the way they died. Hekerui (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is most certainly a claim on notability aprt from the way they died; it is their educational work in Africa. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admit I discounted the Spiegel interview, it was written by school kids. He was an administrator for SOS children's villages and that's a great job, but I didn't think it so extraordinary to make someone notable. Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The obituaries are coverage of their lives, not their deaths. Newspapers such as The Times and The Guardian only publish obituaries of people that they consider to have had notable lives, not of those who only had newsworthy deaths, and the whole thrust of the general notability guideline is that we follow the judgement of such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough verifiable indicia of notoriety in the article to warrant its retention. Kabirat (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Those arguing delete has not sufficiently demonstrate why Bridges is subject to WP:VICTIM given the obituary cited. KTC (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell R. Bridges

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

Notability is derived from WP:ONEEVENT, an event that itself is of dubious notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Daily Telegraph Obituary = obituary in major national newspaper = automatic keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if it is a rule. It is not. Death sells for papers, that doesn't make it a notable event unless it has a lasting impact. Ducknish (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes, it is a rule, or should be. Just because he didn't play professional football... Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because in your opinion it ought to be a rule doesn't make it so. It only supports deletion by showing that all coverage of him is about his horrific death, and none of it has focused on his impact in life. Hence, WP:ONEEVENT, or WP:VICTIM. Ducknish (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I think you'll find it's also an opinion held by others around here. And finally, I've read the obituary and, yes, it does demonstrate notability. And quite clearly WP:ONEEVENT does not apply. It has or should have an appropriate relationship with Tsavorite and probably with tanzanite as well. It's an obituary a life story, not a news article on his murder. Mining is clearly quite important as regards the economy and history of East Africa. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find me one reliable outside source that discusses his life without mentioning a word about his death, and I'll listen. Until then, it still looks like nobody cared until he died. Ducknish (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly you got one thing right - you aren't listening. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listening, and so far I haven't heard the evidence that would actually back your point. Ducknish (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence would appear to suggest otherwise. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find me one reliable outside source that discusses his life without mentioning a word about his death. That's what's missing here. Ducknish (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ducknish, you are not listening, so I'm going to say this for the benefit of those who might: "Find me one reliable outside source that discusses his life without mentioning a word about his death" is clearly not necessary and you are creating false criteria by which to delete the article. His death clearly is a significant and newsworthy aspect of his life, and perhaps if the manner of his death had been less newsworthy, he would be pushed down below the somewhat arbitrary notability line. However, since he was killed, his life has been pushed above that line, as indicated by the Telegraph obituary. His obituary focuses on his life, and mentions his death in an appropriate content ratio. And as I stated obituary in major newspaper/academic journal = automatic keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His life is being discussed in the same way that anyone else's would be in their obituary, There is no coverage of what he did until he died, and it's only being discussed because he died. Ducknish (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM, had he not been horribly murdered no one would be writing a page about him. J04n(talk page) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as J04n pointed out, WP:CRIME applies because the article subject is "known only in connection with a criminal event". Hekerui (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Daily Telegraph obituary is about Bridges' life, not his death. Such a newspaper does not publish obituaries for people on the basis of their newsworthy deaths, but because they had notable lives. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discovery and exploitation of tsavorite makes him notable regardless of anything to do with his death. The very first source in the article discusses him in depth from this perspective without mentioning his death. I would have thought that that alone was enough to make Ducknish change to keep, given their "find me one reliable outside source that discusses his life without mentioning a word about his death" criterion, but if that is not enough, there is an article in Drum magazine about him and tsavorite and there are numerous gbook results for "tsavorite bridges" including a snippet from a piece in Proceedings of the International Gemological Symposium, 1982 which appears to be substantial and is prior to his death. He appears to be published as a geologist (several scholar hits seem to be citing him) and there is a two-page article on him in the scholarly journal Rocks and Minerals. Spinning Spark 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources demonstrate notability apart from the circumstances surrounding his death. Miniapolis 13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Aim murder

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

Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. Not the subject of significant worldwide coverage, no evidence of lasting historical impact, and none of those involved are themselves notable. Nothing that makes this crime significant beyond the norm. Ducknish (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage. For a comparable crime that did get the coverage, see Bailey Junior Kurariki. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Xiao Zhen is another recent NZ murder which got lots of coverage for a different reason. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it didn't get significant media coverage. Schwede 66 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep as is still getting media coverage in UK and NZ, most recently as 2012 in the UK Guardian and 2013 in NZ Herald and Otago Daily Times. True that it was not as significant as Stuart's example. NealeFamily (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons given by Ducknish. Was interested to see that an IP edited the article to describe the boy as Maori. It is the only edit the IP has made to Wikipedia. Moriori (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per criterion 1—nomination withdrawn by nominator with no opinions advocating deletion having been offered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburg stone

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

This is another "New World inscription which proves precolumbian Old World contact". The issue in this case is that there is next to nothing about it: there are credulous reports from a public library and two local newspapers, a passing reference in a work talking about an even more obscure fringe theory, and an entry in a book on regional Forteana. There is also a self-published website whose research on the matter, as we have been able to confirm, shows that much of what is said in the other sources is untrue or misrepresented. For example, the text was supposedly translated by two "professional historians," who are in fact nothing of the kind, but in reality are also fringe researchers. So the upshot is that the article we have is a bit of original research which we put together to sort out the bank of unreliable sources we have to work with. The situation is similar to that of Kobrin Bible, whose final version was a bit of OR I cobbled together to deal with the several credulous sources and one skeptical site which we had to work with (seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Original research" has a very specific definition on wikipedia. The "original" part means strictly "original to a wikipedian". That is, some research that the wikipedian did on his own, and came up with on his own, that can't be found anywhere else. If the wikipedian got it from somewhere else, even if it was somewhere in your expertise you do not consider reliable, it is not "original research". This is clearly not "original research". There is clearly a view that this is a fraud, in opposition to the view that it is not a fraud. If the fraud is as obvious and self evident as you say, there should be nothing to fear from letting people find out about its existence from a wikipedia article. But if there is something to fear, and the article gets deleted, it will be just one more topic that people will have to get information about from outside of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article presents the history and provenance of a stone artifact that was probably fabricated in modern times. The stone was shown at local fairs for more than 50 years before being displayed at two public libraries and a state park. It has been the subject of several newspaper articles, books, blogs, a dedicated web site, and more recently, an episode of the H2 documentary America Unearthed. Jason Colavito, a respected author of several books and a contributor to Skeptic magazine has taken notice, regarding the stone as a modern forgery. Contrary to the nom's assertion, the article does not consist of original research, but is a simple, summarized presentation of the available published information about the subject. The content has sufficient depth and diversity of sources to merit a short, dedicated article about the stone artifact. - Mr X 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed that about Colavito. I would agree this probably ought to be withdrawn but will wait another day for more input. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a sad story of wilful fraud, correctly unearthed and documented with proper citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the stone is a likely hoax, its history is notable per the sources. I was hoping the sources would try and draw a Scottish connection insted of Wales. Oh well. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I ca see the WP:SNOW falling and it's obvious that I'm not going to get support on this. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination for the correct way to do this. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could an uninvolved editor or admin please close this? - Mr X 21:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of slums in Indonesia

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

was PRODded 11 months ago with the concern "POV potential, as well as a fly-by stub with no refs or effort to substantiate the subject - I am not saying there are not slums in Indonesia - but this current stub has no effort to back up with WP:RS or text or anything". PROD was removed but article has not been improved since. —rybec 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one and all the rest. There's a lot of these (Category:Lists of slums), but none of them are really more than WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists with no encyclopedic or notable value. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only four alleged slums listed here. Two of them are redlinks and two have articles in Wikipedia. However, neither of the two places with articles is described as a slum in its own article. Due to concerns about neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability, we should not have an article about a "list of slums" when there are no sources provided to identify these places as slums. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only prior, similar AFD I could find was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slums in the Philippines, which resulted in deletion. postdlf (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmmm, where to begin? Pure OR? Yes that. Unsourced? Yep. No commonly-acceptable inclusion criteria? Yes. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for inclusion is highly subjective, and wholly unsourced. This can't happen with a sensitive topic like this. This is like a sensitive BLP; due to the subject's negative connotation we have to get it 100% right or not have it at all. Them From Space 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect would be a good option but she is mentioned in more than one article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Bhadra

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

Inadequately sourced article about non-notable actor. I am unable to find any reliable sources. The only source in the article is a gossip blog. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also am unable to find anything significant. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khichdi (TV series), the subject is mentioned as a cast member. No indication of stand alone notability, the only reference I could find was this press release. J04n(talk page) 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Carter

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

Inadequately sourced article about non-notable actor. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT; lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 20:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor actor with no coverage to support the article. Ducknish (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic management

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

This is nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as an article - part of a WP:Walled garden of spam - Allan Savory and Holistic Management International. ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, and the other articles as well, as clear adverts. Ducknish (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allan Savory#Holistic management, merge sourced info (of which there seems to be very little), trash the unsavory promotional bits. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ridiculous to just delete this page. Over 40 million acres of land are under holistic management. There are centers around the world. Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, it does exist. The move to delete this page is nothing more than a lame attempt to censure. Now what you could do is merge it with the WIKI managed intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) page, since this management system is one type of "management". There are plenty of scientific studies to back it up as well such as:

"5. Conclusion HMPG is one of a number of newer grazing management systems that more closely simulate natural herbivore behavior and have been shown to improve riparian habitats and water quality over systems that often led to land degradation (Burton and Kozel, 1996; Clary and Webster, 1989; Elmore and Kauffman, 1994)."

Impact of livestock management on water quality and streambank structure in a semi-arid, African ecosystem A.M. Straucha, A.R. Kapust, C.C. Jost, Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 795–803

Notice the source says "one of a number of newer grazing management system"? So this study on holistic management came to a similar conclusion that Holistic management (HMPG) is in a category of newer alternate management systems and the wiki page on MIRG is a good place to list them all in my opinion. This would remove the appearance of using WIKI for free advertising. 68.12.189.106 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. I didn't find much in the way of in-depth coverage by unrelated parties. JFHJr (㊟) 23:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I put several references in the text. The most influential being The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [40]68.12.189.106 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Savory the concept of "Holistic management" is clear influential, there are TED talks, a Banksia International Award, a Buckminster Fuller Challenge award, there are regular well attend conferences, the 2013 Western Canadian Holistic Management Conference had 200 participants.[41] There is a training program for educators which seems to operate world wide [42] cand has trained over 10,000 people[43], the NRCS have a holistic management programsLands of texas magazine. So it becomes clear that the holistic management movement has grown far beyond just Savory's work. Hence its clear that a redirect just to Allan Savory would not seriously misrepresent the movement, almost akin to redirecting wikipedia to Jimmy Wales. Is Holistic management a walled garden? It is a system backed by an institution but a very big movement with governmental links. WP:Walled garden suggest merging or adding links, I think its the latter we should do. Does the article need a cleanup? Yes, it does not clearly discuss the four cornerstones of the program[44] but it does have a criticism section. Is there a case for merging with Holistic Management International. My initial though was yes, but it seems Holistic Management International and the Savory Institute both use the term and seem to be independent with Savory associated with the latter. So things will be clearer if they are kept separate. In conclusion keep influential term with no non-problematic merge target. --Salix (talk): 19:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Basketball Association

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

Article has existed for 6 years on an association that has been discussed, but doesn't exist. And it's unreferenced. No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spectacularly fails WP:ORG.-- ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of any substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: there is a well established British Basketball League already. I'm not sure there's room for another one????? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am only doing a basic search, but CNBC is covering them here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Far too much WP:CRYSTAL in this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If nobody else is talking about them, then we shouldn't have an article. Ducknish (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Late comment Here is an OTRS request from a representative of the company requesting deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Call screening. J04n(talk page) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices to screen telephone calls

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

Unsourced, no indication of meeting WP:LISTN. The inclusion criteria are uselessly vague. I'd say we should merge it into Call screening, but none of the content is worth merging. Huon (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The inclusion criteria is not vague and contributes to the working knowledge of participants seeking the definitons and information of historial or current call rejection or blocking techniques. There are many links to valuable information within wikipedia from this page. The search terms "List of devices to screen telephone calls" can be found on google's search results page that links to the result page at wiki. This is obviously a working search group and is very active. Deletion of the page would break that search path and disrupt the findings "people" are searching for. Call Screening referred to above doesn't list any of the items featured on List of devices to screen telephone calls page. Guest8566 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Call screening, which should at least link to the articles in the list and explain them. Maybe not a suitable topic for a list, or a good title for a redirect; if that's a problem it could be moved to a title such as "Call screening devices" before merging. Peter James (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it it should be merged. Both articles are short, so they could be merged together. Dream Focus 14:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basil von Burman

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

A biography of a priest. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. He was a deacon, but (correct me if I am wrong) this does not make one as notable as a bishop or such. Seems to have written a book or two, but bibliographical information is not very well presented, and I have concerns he would pass WP:AUTHOR. One ref is an obituary, two elinks are not even described, and are not in English (not a problem per se, but I cannot verify they even mention him). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I'm reading the article correctly, the subject was a deacon, which is a lower level in the hierarchy than a priest -- he did not become a priest. See Holy orders#Process and sequence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm just not seeing the claim for notability in this. Deacon is a pretty minor position. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure deletion is justified. It does need more specific sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- he might be notable as an author/translator, but I am not qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem like he was enough of a notable author, and since he's dead, that's not going to change any time soon. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki it I would be happy to userfy it to them on request. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Orquidea, Santa Eulària des Riu

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

Advertising. No reliable sources The Banner talk 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in entering into any discussion with this disruptive editor stavros1 ♣ 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable hotel, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move This article should be Trans-wiki to Wikivoyage it content would be more appropriate on its own page there.Cheeseladder (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per cheeseladder. (cheeseladder? really>)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable hotel with promotional content not appropriate for a wikipedia. Unable to locate significant WP:RS coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For Wikivoyage, it is way too long (usually we provide there a couple of lines for such a hotel), and, besides, I am sure it will be recreated there anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Es Viva, Ibiza

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

Advertising. No reliable sources. The Banner talk 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in entering into any discussion with this disruptive editor stavros1 ♣ 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable hotel, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move This article should be Trans-wiki to Wikivoyage it content would be more appropriate on its own page there.Cheeseladder (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable hotel with promotional content not appropriate for a wikipedia. Unable to locate significant WP:RS coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki it I would be happy to userfy it to them on request. J04n(talk page) 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Fenicia Prestige, Santa Eulària des Riu

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

advertising. No reliable sources The Banner talk 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in entering into any discussion with this disruptive editor stavros1 ♣ 18:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable hotel, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move This article should be Trans-wiki to Wikivoyage it content would be more appropriate on its own page there. Cheeseladder (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable hotel with promotional content not appropriate for a wikipedia. Unable to locate significant WP:RS coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Z: Abridged

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

Fails WP:N and sources used fail WP:RS. Xfansd (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tosan Popo

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

Subject may or may not pass WP:NFOOTY as he has played part of one game in a league cup game between two teams who play in a fully professional league but did not go on to make any further appearances (after 13 Sept 2011). Lack of substantial references means he fails WP:GNG, similar to the case of Fearghus Bruce in this recent deletion discussion. C 679 15:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 15:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than the fact he technically, barely, passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. His one appearance which arguably makes him pass WP:NSPORT did not generate significant coverage, and is by far outweighed by the fact that he clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN until he appears regularly in the first team of a Football League (or higher club). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is the ultimate standard, and he fails that. Ducknish (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though there is a consensus that a footballer that has appeared in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues are presumed notable per WP:NFOOTY, articles should be deleted when they fail WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A1 A7 will restore if someone brings more content to the article that makes it meet WP:GNG Secret ^account 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LdrShutdownProcess

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

PROD contested without any rationale. Concern was "Non-notable programming function. Orphaned article, very short stub, its only reference admits its undocumented..." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no context; it doesn't even mention what operating system or programming language this is a part of. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copyright violation. Article contents were Hindi song lyrics from a movie, dedicated to those who had been ditched by their former girlfriends. So's this closure, BTW. Please remember that there are other deletion processes available besides WP:AFD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MUJHE TANHA

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

Unsourced article consisting of song lyrics in a non-English language. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zager and Evans. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Zager

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

No indication of individual notability, member of a one-hit wonder band (Zager and Evans) which already has an article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming individual notability can't be established, the appropriate remedy here would be a merge and redirect to Zager and Evans, not a delete. A bit of bio information about each of them belongs in that article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but what's here is almost entirely unreferenced. The main article has most of the information already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zager and Evans. Ugh, I remember that song. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zager and Evans. Does not seem to warrant an individual article, but certainly a plausible search term. Gong show 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zager and Evans. J04n(talk page) 22:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Evans

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

No indication of individual notability aside from membership of Zager and Evans — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Assuming individual notability can't be established, the appropriate remedy here would be a merge and redirect to Zager and Evans, not a delete. A bit of bio information about each of them belongs in that article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but what's here is almost entirely unreferenced. The main article has most of the information already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zager and Evans. The information is there, the group is notable because of the song. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zager and Evans. Like Zager, Evans does not appear to warrant an individual article. A redirect makes sense. Gong show 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabboş

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable, non-English neologism. Fails WP:MADEUP. - Mr X 14:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article. Muhabboş is a noun was created by Gökhan Arkan in 27 February 2013. It means "small talk". The word is Turkish origin and it is consist of a combination of "muhabbet" and "boş". Wikipedia is not for things we made up around the hookah. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't suppose there's any CSD category that quite fits this, but there's nothing in the article or in Google searches that shows any evidence of notability (or even existence) or other basis for this article to remain.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this straight-up neologism. MADEUP, NEO, NOTDIC, N, V, etc. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Variables

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

Promotion (and for something non-notable at that). Also CoI as username is almost the same as article name. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Defence League demonstrations

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

This list, in table form was created against consensus. It is a content fork, of sorts, from English Defence League. The original discussion rejecting the creation of a list spin-off can be found here [45]. The list is an incomplete record of street demonstrations by the subject organisation. It lacks neutrality and has no obvious encyclopaedic purpose as a record of miscellaneous individual dated events which, by themselves, are lacking in notability. A case for merging some of the events into the host article might be made, but it is difficult to see why that would add to the completeness of the main article from which this list is forked. Leaky Caldron 11:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English Defence League. Content is directly related to the subject of the English Defence League article. A list of events would be appropriate to that article, and perhaps should be made into a collapsed table, as not to give it undue weight within the article. English Defence League does not meet WP:LIMIT so no sub-articles are required at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these are individually notable and the existence of a list does not benefit the article or encyclopedia - this can be summed up as "the EDL has demonstrations, sometimes against Muslim groups, frequent counterprotested by UAF." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO (especially point 3) and WP:DISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't here to list information, regardless of whether or not it's true, when it's not encyclopaedic. – Richard BB 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP and WP:CSC#2 and #3 and WP:SPLIT, and there's no reason why it could be considered non-neutral; it's just a list of facts with references to reliable sources for each one. Per WP:DISCRIMINATE, the list has a well-defined inclusion criterion. Given that it's not a list of statistics AND there's "sufficient explanatory text" to put it in their proper context here, WP:IINFO does not apply. Diego (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator doesn't provide a reason for deletion that is based on policy. The discussion linked by the nominator does not show a consensus to not have the list, it didn't form a consensus at all. Diego (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy considerations were provided: WP:CONSENSUS. The discussion at the time did not support the creation of a separate list or to retain the full list within the main article. At best the discussion consensus evolved to incorporate a summary within the main article. WP:IINFO - part of the policy of WP:What Wikipedia is not. The current list is indiscriminate, it does not identify any events that were in themselves notable. Being true and verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. To provide encyclopaedic value material should be put in context. Articles should not be summary-only descriptions. None of the events listed, which are demonstrations involving disturbance to public order, would not in themselves reach a notable level. Leaky Caldron 10:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that those considerations don't support deletion:

discussion at the time did not support the creation of a separate list- It didn't reject it either by consensus; and WP:BOLD allows creating new content without asking for permission, when there's a lack of consensus against it.
The current list is indiscriminate - Not by any of the definitions in WP:IINFO nor the one in WP:DISCRIMINATE. The list has a clear inclusion criterion ("demonstrations from members of the English Defence League that were covered by reliable sources") so it's not indiscriminate.
the discussion consensus evolved to incorporate a summary within the main article- this doesn't exclude a separate, complete list - see WP:SUMMARY.
Articles should not be summary-only descriptions.- This is not that, it's a valid WP:LIST article.
None of the events listed (...) would not in themselves reach a notable level. That's irrelevant. Criterion WP:CSC#2 for lists allows for collections of non-notable elements of the same type as long as the topic is notable, per WP:LISTN. And the topic is notable since it clearly satisfies the WP:GNG, there is no shortage of reliable sources describing it and its related article, the one which provide all the needed context. This is a valid WP:SPLIT article. Diego (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Diego. The article is well-sourced and pertinent to the parent article, which is itself too big to accomodate the information. Meets all the criteria required by WP policy. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to type almost exactly what Diego did. Those delete !votes arguing "indiscriminate" seem to understand "indiscriminate" to mean something like "random", "unusual", "just any old information" rather than the technical definition it has on WP. The article clearly is not indiscriminate in the WP sense - not just because there are clear inclusion criteria as Diego points out, but I would also argue since the number of EDL demonstrations is finite and each individual demonstration is well-documented in reliable sources, a comprehensive, objective and discriminate list is possible. A good way of understanding WP:SPLIT as it applies to this article - if there had been only five demonstrations in the history of the EDL, would a cut-down version of this list have belonged in their article? The answer is clearly "yes". This (a) confirms that the content of this article is encyclopedic (even if the topic title might not seem it at first glance), (b) completely addresses the "individual protests were not notable" argument. Individual protests may not be article-worthy but Diego explained why this does not contradict WP:LIST; moreover this thought experiment confirms that somewhere in Wikipedia there should be overview-level coverage of the history of EDL demonstrations. It doesn't need to be at article-level granularity for each demonstration, but it should be here somewhere, and while the logical place would be in the EDL article WP:SPLIT applies for length reasons. TheGrappler (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They get coverage for each event. Dream Focus 15:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At most weak keep -- EDL is a small right wing neo-fascist type movement. This article might be merged back to the article on them, but that would probably make it overlong. The demos attract modest numbers of people and require a large police presence, partly to prevent confontation with the the left-wing fascists (sorry - revolutionary socialists) and their fellow travellers. The comment for one demo "no arrests" is significantly exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - I don't like the EDL, but nor do I like pneumonia, no reason not to include it. The creation of a list, in or out of the root article seems reasonable. The EDL is Notable, and such a list is evidence of that. If it is too long for the article, why should it not be a list article? In my personal view any street politics is as notable as the various music and album based content. I added weak to the vote, because I can see the similarity to things like the list of bus route articles currently being culled: but this case is different, the bus articles would need constant syncing with timetables - once a demo has happened & is cited that's it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I initially wrote a rationale for a "delete" close of this article. But after rereading comments by those posted, the consensus states that while many of the various mentions of Barro, such as in TIME's 140 list and Forbes' 30 under 30 subcategorisation, do not by themselves constitute "substantial depth of coverage", the number of them in aggregate support a case for inclusion per WP:BASIC. Valid arguments were also made for inclusion under WP:CREATIVE, and while no single point clearly applies, enough of them (1, 3, 5) partially apply. L Faraone 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Barro

If you came here because you read about this discussion at Salon.com, 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)

There's a conspicuous lack of anything approaching the depth of coverage normally needed for a biography. An article by the subject himself doesn't count, and neither does a blurb written by his employer. Nor, for that matter, does an editorial that mentions him in passing. Finally, placing 103rd in a list of the 140 best Twitter feeds of 2012, according to one man's opinion, also proves nothing in terms of encyclopedic notability.

Is there any evidence that Barro has been, per WP:BASIC, "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You disparage the Atlantic article and the Twitter list, but what is it about them that is not "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Are they not reliable? Are they not intellectually independent of each other? Are they not independent of Barro?

I also disagree that the Atlantic article mentions him "in passing". The whole article is a summary of the ideas of Barro and a few others, attributed to them. DB Durham NC (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "disparaging" anything, but merely asserting that those links do nothing in terms of demonstrating notability. The Atlantic piece is an editorial; WP:NEWSORG discourages use of such. An opinion piece about the opinion of another opinion writer is not a meaningful form of coverage for our purposes. And let's not inflate Barro's contribution: trillion dollar coin makes no mention of him, and rightly so.
The fact that a tech blogger happened to name someone 103rd tweeter of the year, and proceed to write two lines about him, in no way demonstrates that individual's notability.
Let's look at WP:GNG as well: it mandates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Where is the significant coverage? Where are the "sources that address the subject directly in detail"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is notoriously hard to find sources for journalists, since material is apt either to be by their employers (thus not counting to GNG) or non-existent (since other media outlets do not write about their competitors). This is an important writer for Bloomberg, it would seem, who has appeared as an expert guest on the Bill Maher show. It would seem that there SHOULD be a Wikipedia article about him. No time to hunt for sources now, but there is a big web footprint and I have a hunch sourcing is out there if sought actively enough. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is our article on Peter Jennings an FA, we have GAs on a slew of contemporary journalists (loosely defined): Jay Barbree, A. Scott Berg, Jesús Blancornelas, Neal Boortz, Max Boot, Myron Cope, Steve Dahl, Johan Hambro, Ivar Hippe, Nigella Lawson, Bernard Levin, Michael Savage, Nick Robinson, John Stossel. Journalists who've earned independent coverage are not that hard to find, and there's no particular reason to lower our standards in this category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One additional candidate for "significant coverage" is Josh' presence on Forbes' 30 Under 30 list in 2012. Josh's work regularly receives praise from other notable bloggers with wikipedia entries, e.g. Marginal Revolution,Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias, etc., though admittedly such citations do not map neatly into wikipedia's notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.DeRemer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Fores list. Biruitorul refers to Barro "placing 103rd in a list of the 140 best Twitter feeds". Not so. If you review the citation with care, you'll find that the list is not ranked. The full list is here, and you'll see that Barro appears in the section labeled "Politics" between Michael Beschloss and Marco Rubio. Pretty good company, no? As for authorship, Adam Sorensen wrote the one-sentence description for Barro, but the list was compiled by "TIME Staff". Not by "a tech blogger" as is said above. How was it compiled? "After consulting with TIME editors in every field from politics and sports to technology and entertainment, we’ve compiled a list of Twitter feeds that stand out for their humor, knowledge and personality. It’s not comprehensive—there are more deserving tweeters than we can tally, and all honorees from previous years have been excluded...." So it's published under the TIME imprimatur and reflects the judgment of the staff and Barro is one of ten under the Politics heading. I'd call that notable. And this should have been noted by anyone reviewing the entry for notability before proposing the entry for deletion.

I don't know if Barro is sufficiently notable for a WP entry, but I'd like to see sources evaluated with care. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making a name for oneself on Twitter is not prima facie evidence of notability, even if one happens to be placed alongside 139 other individuals by a magazine, some of whom are notable for other activities (Beschloss and Rubio, for instance), others of whom are equally lacking in notability (Nick Confessore, Andrew Kaczynski). - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your mischaracterization of the sources cited in the first place? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And who made you my interrogator? Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bmclaughlin9 is completely right about your mischaracterization of sources - that is clearly a comment on the content of your post, not a comment on the contributor. Barro's being selected out of millions of Twitter feeds, by a venerable, highly respected, traditional magazine as one of 10 top political Tweeters, is certainly notable - as is Nick Confessore, by the way, who is a Pulitzer Prize winner among other things. Tvoz/talk 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added another independent source attesting notability (explicitly!). DB Durham NC (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A blog post arguing against deletion of a Wikipedia article hardly attests anything. Let's not descend into the farcical here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an independent source. It addresses the subject in detail. What more do you want? DB Durham NC (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ever read WP:BLOGS? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Barro himself approvingly tweeted a link to this blog post, so I think we have met the "use them with caution" requirement - no fact-checking concerns here. I have added an attribution as recommended by the verifiability page. Good enough? DB Durham NC (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid you're grasping at straws. A blogger proclaiming a Tweeter to be "extremely notable", and the latter endorsing the blog post, in no way amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources, even if the former happens to be paid by salon.com. How about some sources with distance between subject and writer, with at least a pretense of objectivity, with peer review, with depth of coverage? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Leonard and Barro have never met, so I don't know how much more "distance" you could have. And can you specify what it is in the article that's not objective? Also, can you tell me what kind of peer review and depth of coverage are required? DB Durham NC (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You might wish to have another look at WP:RS, in particular phrases such as "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and let that sink in before you continue advocating we use a blog post as evidence for someone's notability. You might also want to check some of the references in the list of GAs on journalists I assembled above. There aren't many citations to blog posts taking sides in a Wikipedia deletion discussion, I would venture to guess. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm confused. Is a Salon blog not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Does the passage I quoted from WP:BLOGS not apply here? And can you address the questions about distance, objectivity, peer review and depth of coverage I asked above? DB Durham NC (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to plop a link to this salon.com article here. I'm not going to weigh in on the debate, though, because it feels meatpuppety. - Richfife (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I'm also going to encourage Andrew Leonard (I know you're reading this) to read up on Passive-aggressive behavior. - Richfife (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, I would like to inform Mr. Leonard that I am pursuing this discussion because I believe Mr. Barro fails the notability threshold set by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sorry to burst his bubble, but this is not "a prank", and I have no "political vendetta" against Barro. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no particular dog in this fight, but I was aware of Barro's work prior to Leonard's article and as a long-time Wikipedia editor I think it is flat-out ridiculous to consider deleting this article. To the deletionists, find another target. This one is a no-brainer: keep it. Arjuna (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist, not deletionists. There's only one. DB Durham NC (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, there is only one user forthrightly calling for deletion, but I refuse to be labeled a "deletionist" simply because I wish to flush out of this encyclopedia a bit of senseless trivia. Anyway, Arjuna, you may wish to adduce some policy-based arguments in support of retaining the article. Asserting that a deletion proposal is "flat-out ridiculous" can never substitute for a convincing demonstration of how an individual meets relevant notability policies, as established through material that meets WP:RS requirements. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Let's be objective here. The man is not notable. If he was, the article would be filled with much more content instead of being a two-sentence stub. If there was more notable information to add, then I would wait and see until someone could come up with a decent claim to notability. But after Google testing and researching about the subject, there doesn't seem to be any information that is worthy to be included in the encyclopedia. The subject is also pretty much an orphan, being wikilinked in only two other articles (One of which is Robert Barro, the subject's father]]. In fact, the footnote that explains who Josh Barro is in Robert Barro's page could be expanded to include the information said here. You could call this a Merge vote, but the fact is, the article is not notable and doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Perhaps Josh Barro will gain notability in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we have to deal with what we have. I vote to Delete it, or at the very least, to Merge these two sentences into Robert Barro's footnote. Feedback ^☎ 04:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Arjuna. This is a classic stub: "an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion." There are sources and basic facts about a journalist who has attracted the attention of a major news source, Time magazine, for one. This is why we have the concept of "stub" - yes, it needs expansion, but it certainly should not be deleted. The energy being expended here to delete this stub would be better applied to improving and expanding the piece, and ignoring the peanut gallery off-Wiki, rather than posturing for it. Tvoz/talk 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone is inherently notable (like, say, Pablo Buitrago y Benavent), a stub that is AfD'd can remain in place only if notability is demonstrated during the AfD discussion at the very least. That has yet to happen. I will now address three specific matters. First, attention from Time may prove notability, but it's not a given; it depends on the context of that attention. Giving Barro two lines of coverage alongside 139 other individuals, many or even most of whom are decidedly not notable, says nothing about his own notability. You added the Forbes source, but the problem is the same. The coverage is not in-depth, and while some of the people in their list are notable (Abby Huntsman, Chris Hughes), most are not - meaning inclusion in the list is not a particularly good metric of notability. Finally, you added a blog post (yes, Mediaite is a blog) - again, see WP:BLOGS for that.
  - Professional blogs like Mediaite or Andrew Leonard's blog at Salon can be acceptable sources for Wikipedia. DB Durham NC (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice sleight of hand there, but simply decreeing something a "professional blog" does not make it acceptable under WP:NEWSBLOG, which refers to things like this or this. And even if the two aforementioned blogs did fall under that narrow exception to the prohibition on citing blogs, they would still not prove anything about Barro's notability. One of them merely mentions he made a talk show appearance (which does not equate with notability), and the other, well, we've been through this before. It's absurd to be citing a blog post taking sides in a Wikipedia discussion - and then distorting the source to claim it asserts that Barro "has been described by others as conservative, liberal and libertarian" when it does no such thing. This project is supposed to be a work of scholarship citing peer-reviewed material, not an amalgamation of random blog posts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your standards are higher than those listed in WP:NEWSBLOG, and they are impossible to meet. I give up. DB Durham NC (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me, I'm distorting the source? No, I don't think so. Quoting from Leonard with emphasis added in case you missed it the first time: "He is, in my opinion, a rare breed indeed: an intellectually honest analyst of political and economic affairs who makes up his own mind, does not hew to any preset ideology and relies on facts to makes his arguments. People who disagree with him have labeled him conservative, liberal and libertarian. That’s not easy to achieve!". That is what I paraphrased and cited to Leonard. Yes, I would like to get the primary sources that label him in these different ways, but that's again the benefit of being a stub - this is a new piece, and it needs time to flesh it out. Using secondary sources is totally acceptable, certainly as a stop-gap. Put on a "ref improve" tag if you like, but don't characterize a legitmate quote as a distortion. If you are more comfortable with going back to having Leonard's name in the article, and identifying that quote as his opinion (see WP:NEWSORG), I'd be ok with that - I just thought it read better the way I edited it. Referring to pieces on Salon as "blog posts" totally misunderstands its standing as a reputable online magazine of almost 20 years duration. There are staff writers (such as Leonard), editorial oversight and standards. Try submitting something to Salon, and you'll see. And you know that the blogs that we are cautioned against overwhelmingly are personal, self-published blogs, not those published as news sites, and in any case, Leonard's piece is an article in their Tech area, not a blog post of any kind. As for Mediaite, it also is in no sense a personal, self-published blog - it also has acceptance standards and oversight, and while not as strong a source as Salon, it is being used here solely as outside verification of the subject's appearance on a major, notable, national cable tv program. You seem to have your own internal barometer of who is notable and who is not (I notice you didn't reply about your incorrect assertion of non-notability regarding Pulitzer Prize winning Nick Confessore) and what source is acceptable and what not. I respectfully suggest that you take a step back, Biruitorul, and let's see how the community actually feels, rather than dominating this discussion but ignoring valid arguments, and attacking other commenters by accusing them of distortion. Tvoz/talk 18:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And look, I'm not being obtuse here. I realize many people have heard of Barro. I've heard of him myself, months ago, and much of what he says strikes me as sensible. I realize he has a certain level of popularity or even notoriety. However, being at that level and satisfying WP:GNG are two different matters; since he doesn't satisfy it, his biography has no business being in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that Barro qualifies under WP:CREATIVE criteria 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and criteria 2: "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications." There are now three independent sources of his peers listing Barro as a notable center-right journalist on the page. This combined with the precedence for having articles for other similarly notable political bloggers with similar sources for notability (e.g. Reihan Salam, Yuval Levin, Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias, Digby (blogger), Ramesh Ponnuru etc.) seems to argue either in favor of keeping the page on Barro or deleting many of those other pages. I guess it all depends on how narrowly you define "widely cited" which seems to be an inherently subjective distinction. mcd51 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Barro has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. This is the standard set in WP:GNG. There are comments above trying to create a higher standard for inclusion as a stand-alone article, but one does not have to be the subject of a cover story in People (magazine) in order to warrant one's own entry in Wikipedia. DB Durham NC (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — DB Durham NC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage that is required by the GNG, and the general notability required by WP:CREATIVE. The nomination is correct that the sources presented only contain passing mentions of him; there is no in depth coverage of him shown. The lone exception is an article about this very Wikipedia entry, which was written as an explicit attempt not to get this deleted. This man's influence within his field at the current time isn't strong enough to evidence permanent notability and, with that, an encyclopedia article. Them From Space 21:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in WP:GNG that says coverage doesn't count if it mentions Wikipedia. This is what I mean when I say people are trying to create a higher standard for inclusion than exists in WP:GNG. DB Durham NC (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think for the purposes of this debate, you should visualize the text of the salon article with a "keep" in front of it as if it were posted right here. That is, ultimately, what it is. - Richfife (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Salon article is significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. For purposes of this debate, that's very different from something posted here. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment on WP:GNG- Most of you above have been asserting the subject's notability because of "significant coverage" in three sources. You fail to realize that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes only a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.". According to WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE, it's up to us to decide if the coverage is enough for the subject to warrant a stand-alone article. And frankly, just read the article. There is nothing here that warrants its own article space in the encyclopedia. The article states (1) He works for Bloomberg, (2) He has a lot of followers on Twitter, (3) Both Forbes and David Brooks see potential in him, (4) He's a Republican/Libertarian, (5) He studied at Harvard, (6) He lives in Queens, and (7) He's Robert Barro's son. Does any of that assert notability? Not really. I think (1), (3) and (7) are enough to get him a mention in Robert Barro's article, while (2), (5) and (6) are trivial and unneeded. Feedback ^☎ 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least get the facts right? No one has said here or in the article that he is notable because he has a lot of followers on Twitter. That is utterly incorrect. Time magazine selected him as one of the top 140 Twitter feeds of the year - one of 10 in politics. That confers notability. As does the Forbes selection and the Brooks comment. Trivializing this discussion by pretending anyone thinks where he lives is what makes him notable makes me wonder about motivation -did someone make that claim? And I assume you are not suggesting that the "trivial" biographical information about who his father is, where he studied, etc be removed from his bio? Because if so, you have a whole lot of work ahead of you in purging the thousands of bios here of such "trivial" information. And finally, as I have said, this is a stub, not a fully formed article. The whole point of a stub is that it needs to be fleshed out - we have demonstrated basic notability in the stub, and certainly need to expand it and add more and better sourcing. But to claim no notability because the "article" is not full is absurd.Tvoz/talk 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either you didn't fully read my statement, or you purposely sensationalized it to avoid a rational discussion. I never said his relationship to his father was trivial, in fact, I argued that it had a place in the encyclopedia (in Robert Barro). And the reason I said where he studied is trivial in this discussion was because of WP:DEGREE. I also never said that I was voting to delete it because the article isn't full. In my original "Delete" vote, I wrote that had their been significant coverage, I would have voted a Keep. But after doing my own research, I could only find WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE ("Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline."). The reason the article isn't "full" is because there is nothing to fill it with. The subject just isn't notable. Feedback ^☎ 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable because he is an interesting person who writes and says things that people talk about. I've added a citation that is an example of this. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, there are plenty of "interesting people" who write and make people talk. If you are arguing that this is enough for someone to get an article on Wikipedia, then by all means, you are expanding the scope of Wikipedia exponentially! Feedback ^☎ 01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. He's an interesting person who writes and says things that people talk about and he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. DB Durham NC (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 9 references listed in this article, 2 of them are about Josh Barro. The first is a primary from Bloomberg, and the second is an article about this very AFD. The other 7 references are discussions about some important and definitely notable topics, of which Josh Barro had an opinion on. His comments are addressed in the articles, which is definitely an achievement for a blogger, but not enough to be considered notable for Wikipedia. People don't inherit the notability of the topics they speak about. For example, we here at AFD speak about plenty of notable topics every day. That doesn't make any of us any more notable. Josh is a blogger who talks about important subjects, but he hasn't accomplished anything of note and the article doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. However, a footnote at Robert Barro is definitely suitable concerning the circumstances. Feedback ^☎ 01:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted before, there's nothing in WP:GNG that says a source doesn't count if it's an article about this AFD. And I agree that writing about notable topics doesn't make you notable, but what Barro has done is not just write about notable topics, but have other writers in independent, reliable sources write about his writing about those topics. That's different, isn't it? On the issues of whether (1) being named a top Twitter feed by Time, (2) being named to Forbes' 30 under 30 list, or (3) being invited to participate as a panelist on Real Time with Bill Maher constitute accomplishments of note, I hope we can agree to disagree. I don't think it makes sense to keep Barro only as a footnote on his father's page; his accomplishments are independent of his father. DB Durham NC (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon article is pretty much just a very loud "Keep" vote, it hardly establishes notability. Your comments about Barro's writing are basically instances of WP:TALENT, while your comment about him making the Twitter list is an instance of WP:FAME. Also, not everyone who has appeared on Real Time has a Wikipedia article. One TV appearance does not an article make. (See WP:ONEEVENT). And you're right about his accomplishments being independent of his father, that's because notability isn't inheritable (in the same way he doesn't inherit the notability of the topics he writes about). And as of now, you have yet to provide a reliable source that "writes about his writing" without it being an instance of WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. But that isn't your fault, as I can't find one either. The fact is, you're basically arguing with yourself every time you say significant coverage would make him notable. He doesn't have any. So by your own definition, he isn't notable. You're being guilty of WP:ANTECEDENT. Feedback ^☎ 04:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the allegation that the reliable sources that "write about his writing" are all instances of TRIVIALCOVERAGE. This notability guideline, "doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." In each of the contested articles, the purpose of the article is to list a number of notable political commentators. While these references are short (around one sentence long each) I would say they are central to the purpose of the articles, not trivial side references. At the very least, I'd argue that this criteria is much more subjective than is being acknowledged, and these articles shouldn't be dismissed out of hand from this discussion. Finally, the purpose of TRIVCOV is to avoid original research, and I don't see anyone arguing that this article is violating WP:NOR, though I would welcome the discussion. mcd51 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are correct that a purpose of WP:TRIVCOV is to avoid OR, it's not it's only purpose. It's main purpose is to make sure all participants in AFD to abide by WP:N, and it explicitly states that "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." Do you believe there is enough content to write articles from a NPOV? As of right now, it reads more like the introduction to his curriculum vitae with such trivial information as his academic and job histories spiced up with some minor online accolades. There is no content that asserts notability. Not in the article and not in the references. Feedback ^☎ 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I think the Josh Barro is notable is that he is the lead opinion blogger for prominent news source Bloomberg L.P., as it says right there in the lead. His notability is supported by the several other independent sources in the citations that list Barro as a notable opinion writer. In this regard, it appears that Barro is similar to other prominent opinion bloggers who already have Wikipedia pages, such as Matthew Yglesias, Alex Pareene, Ramesh Ponnuru, Megan McArdle, Digby (blogger) and Ta-Nehisi Coates, all of whom are notable primarily for being opinion bloggers. Should these pages all be deleted too for being non-notable?mcd51 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To this list I would add William Saletan, Farhad Manjoo, Reihan Salam and Conor Friedersdorf. I cannot see a reason they would be considered notable if Barro is not. DB Durham NC (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone tried to create a Wikipedia article about me, for example, and it went to AFD, nobody at Salon would care to write about it. Salon wrote about Josh Barro's Wikipedia article because Josh Barro is notable. The Salon post counts for a lot more than just a "very loud keep vote". The GNG says so! I don't understand why your other Wiki links are relevant, especially WP:ONEEVENT (Barro has been on TV dozens of times and his articles have been discussed in independent reliable sources probably even more often) and WP:NOTINHERIT (Nobody said his father makes him notable). Trivial coverage? The Salon article is not trivial, and neither is this (part 1) (part 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DB Durham NC (talk • contribs) 10:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that Andrew Leonard writing about Josh Barro is evidence of his notability. However, Andrew Leonard is just a fan who thinks he's talented. It has no effect on notability. Andrew Leonard himself has been a political commentator over 10 years and has even coined phrases that have their own encyclopedic entries. And yet, he doesn't have his own Wikipedia entry. That's because although Andrew Leonard may participate in topics that are notable, that doesn't mean he is notable. Same thing goes for Josh. Listen, you're just refusing to get the point. You're fitting most of the examples of WP:ATA and you continue trying to come up with some sort of argument. Obviously, you created the article and won't be convinced of its failure to meet WP:N. I think it's rather pointless that I continue debating this with you. Feedback ^☎ 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT is relevant in a situation where consensus exists. You can't possibly be asserting that any consensus exists here, can you? I also highly doubt that a quantitative analysis would conclude I am fitting "most" examples in WP:ATA. Which ones am I fitting? DB Durham NC (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I meant to link to WP:Subjective importance, not WP:ATA. You can review above which parts I feel you linked to.

And the consensus I feel you're not listening to is the GNG in WP:N. Josh Barro, just like Andrew Leonard, have contributed to notable topics like You didn't build that and Open-source journalism, but they are not notable themselves. Feedback ^☎ 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALENT is about comments on AFD pages. It does not apply to Andrew Leonard's Salon article, which is an independent reliable source, not an AFD comment. DB Durham NC (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"And the consensus I feel you're not listening to is the GNG in WP:N" This sentence doesn't make any sense. DB Durham NC (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG like all guidelines is a result of community consensus. You ignored it when you wrote the article, and you mischaracterize it every time you call "Josh Barro" notable. As for WP:TALENT, the same principle still applies. You're using a prime example of "Subjective importance" to assert notability. Feedback ^☎ 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but WP:IDHT refers to consensus on the AFD page. That does not exist. As for WP:TALENT, are you really asserting that a comment in AFD and an article in Salon carry the same weight? Really? Talent "means nothing in the way of notability unless it gets published". It was published! in Salon! Sorry to be a broken record, but Barro has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him. There's nothing subjective about that. DB Durham NC (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability at best. Give it time, but right now this article seems to almost be attempting to make the figure more than he really is. Even with nine sources the article still reads like a review page and not an encyclopedic entry.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on his father. He does not need a seperate article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep I'm an inclusionist, so I think there's little benefit from deleting what may well develop into a decent article. Still, to be fair, there's little evidence of potential to grow beyond Stub class any time soon. I just can't find very much reputable information about the man. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barro appears to have received the coverage required per GNG, and, unlike the many pop culture biographies, is likely to remain relevant beyond the common 15 minutes of fame. --Trödel 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I realize it's a bit early to close, but this is going the way of WP:SNOW. Also, I was the admin that declined the speedy nom of Sephiroth's in the first place, and can now totally see his point of view. Keeper | 76 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40th Military Police Detachment

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

Proposing deletion for 40th Military Police Detachment. Article is of minimal if any notability. There are many military units in the US Military, not to mention the world wide military, not every unit needs an article, just because it has a history. Consider also that this unit is a detachment, not even a Battalion, Brigade, or other large unit that would generally be considered notable. This is not to denigrate a smaller unit that has historical or modern significance. As an example, Seal Team Six is notable because of the caliber of its personnel, the missions it's conducted, ect. Not simply because of its existence, although as a Special Operations unit, that in my mind may make it notable in the absence of other information. Finally, I believe this article does not mean the general notability guideline, which is the standard for inclusion on a WP:MILHIST article; because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I cannot verify that this is the correct unit, the only MPD listed on the Sill website is [46] 34th MPD, this may be the re-designated unit mentioned in the article, but even the page does not state the original name of the unit, indicating to me that it wasn't considered important. Most military units will note name changes in their histories. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of United States Army Military Police Units. Subject has received a few passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however in reviewing them none appear to be significant coverage of the subject, nor do they add up to something that would be considered significant coverage; therefore, the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. As a detachment it does not appear that the unit can operate independently like a FST, so I doubt it passes WP:MILUNIT.

All that being said, the subject is a Military Police Unit, and there is already a list for that. So a redirect to such a list appears to be a logical solution. If the subject of this article received significant coverage in the future, this article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to agree, but I think, what is the likelihood that the redir is necessary? What are the chances that someone comes to WP and types that unit into the search bar? I would certainly agree with the unit being listed on that page, but so many red links... (and rightfully so.) I've always hated seeing a blue link, clicking and being redir'ed back to the same location. Suggest deletion and adding to the list if it is not already listed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It could perfectly possibly be searched for or linked from another article, so if we don't keep it (and I'm neutral here) then it should at least be redirected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no significant links. [47] Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). These type of subunits have been judged not notable, and there are about eight AfDs for Army and Air Force sub-units like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG or MILUNIT. We are talking about a platoon-strength sub-unit here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable, and no likelihood that people will search for this obscure sub-unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mitchell (barrister)

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

"Just another lawyer" - fails WP:BIO - references are to sources connected with the subject (his legal chambers' website) or to online profiles (eg Chambers and Partners - not to be confused with his legal chambers at http://33knowledge.com) and do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite Just another fairly high ranking lawyer... Probably worthy of an article - but this oozes promotion and is badly referenced from a Wikipedia point of view. Possibly a conflict there between legal and encyclopaedic practice - they prefer 'he said that...' and we prefer 'The Times said that...'. Peridon (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably written by a junior in his chambers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much a C.V. rather than encyclopedic biography. Not seeing sourcing showing to get this subject over GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This feels far more like a CV or ADVERT than a biography. AS a QC, he has appeared in some high level cases, but that hardly makes him notable. If we allow this=, we would have to allow an article on every QC. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Obekop

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

PROD dropped for the following reason: obekop has played in the top professional league of his country and has represented Cameroon at FIFA sanctioned Under-20 African Nations qualifying matches. However, the Cameroonian top tier is not listed as a league in WP:FPL and youth international results do not count towards WP:NFOOTY. Also the player still fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Player has started in New York's two MLS Reserve league games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBA (Tarja album)

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

Stop - Hammer Time, without prejudice to re-create in the future. Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBA (2013). No improvements to sources since last attempt. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Looks like a speedy candidate to me. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No title or release date are confirmed and there is no substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Spinning Spark 14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tien len

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

nonnotable card game Curb Chain (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Tien Len can be considered the national card game of Vietnam. Probably, as a result of the Vietnam war, Tien Len has spread to some parts of the USA, where it is sometimes called Viet Cong or just VC." John McLeod - Krenakarore ^TK 11:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where did you get this quote? Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the fellow who follows the dream... Krenakarore ^TK 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling it comes with the same sentence repeated over a number of sites, most of which are not reliable.Curb Chain (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagat.com is not a reliable source. It is written by one author, with no transparancy. John McLeod is also not an authoritative source or expert.Curb Chain (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're in no position to say that John McLeod isn't an authoritative source or expert in the field. Besides, the fact that you can't find sources in your language doesn't mean that it is non-notable. Much of the information I needed for Khanhoo, I found in Chinese language. I guess the same applies to, not only Tien Len, but many other games, you know. Krenakarore ^TK 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rylon (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not just a vote.Curb Chain (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you really haven't made an argument for me to discuss. You say it's non-notable, but you give no reasons to support that conclusion. You've refuted the reasons given that someone might think it's notable, but that's not the same has giving a reason for non-notablity. You simply haven't made a prima facie case for non-notablity.

But how about this: I came to this page because I saw people playing a similar game on the bus. All the players looked Southeast Asian, and I live in San Jose, a city with a large Vietnamese population. It's possible, even likely, that the game is well known among American-Vietnamese people, but it hasn't made it's way into typical Anglo-American card game rules databases. That's what makes it so hard to find English sources on the subject. For example, I have the most recent version of "Official Rules of Card Games" and it doesn't cover either this game, nor the Chinese game Big Two. Despite the fact that Big Two is extremely popular.

I think that, before this is deleted for non-noteablity, we get some kind of consensus from Vietnamese or Vietnamese-Americans about it's popularity among those groups. Because there may be english speakers who, like me, come across the game and need a reliable english source for it to learn more. Rylon (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thorough search of the sources in Vietnamese and English but only came up with gaming sites. I could not find any literature on this game.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that exactly where you would expect to find information about a game? On gaming sites? Rylon (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, these gaming sites are the flash game gaming sites that you play. There's no literature.Curb Chain (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Part of the problem is that there isn't a lot written or scholarly study on recreational games. Card games are particularly prone to this. Bridge and Poker get the lion's share and all the other games gets bits. Euchre, one of the most popular game in the English speaking world, is rarely written about. But even it gets more bits dedicated to it than Hearts and Spades do.

I think that there's clearly a game here that's popular. But I think you've miss articulated the problem. It's not that it's not notable, it's that most of the article is original research. It's seems to be based on personal experience rather than secondary sources. This page would likely be better served by a template saying the article is poorly sourced and that editors should try to find appropriate sources to add. Rylon (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but cut out everything but the lead paragraph per WP:NOTHOW. The lead has a fairly decent source already in it plus I found this, language is obviously a barrier to finding more. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Winner is also nominated for deletion, both are off-shoots of Big 2, maybe we should trim the articles into compliance with WP:NOTHOW and merge them into Big 2. Maybe move the trimmed content user space for further development. Rylon (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a repository of everything. If articles are duplicates or are too similar, they should be merged.Curb Chain (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. James086 ^Talk 08:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huu Long Tran

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

Page has been deleted under A7 criteria. The subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable biography. reference links to LinkedIn.Curb Chain (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP. Highly promotional, notability is not established. Beagel (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a resumé, not an encyclopedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete, I see nothing that even comes close to a claim of importance in this ocean of buzzwords. Tagged with {{db-bio}}; note that it was tagged as such before but removed by the creator of the article and not replaced prior to the AfD. If someone can find some claim of importance in here such that A7 doesn't apply, delete nonetheless as patently non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Nuha Anwar

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

Ostensibly the article is a biography, but it is really a WP:COATRACK for a political party. There are sources, yes, but the sources are part of the coatrack. Prominent in the article is the line "There has been a lot of rumors circulating especially in the blogosphere that Nurul Nuha will be contesting the Nibong Tebal seat for next election." Wikipedia is not a place to propound rumours, nor to agitate for some sort of political result. The person is not notable. Rumours and counter rumours do not make the person notable.

It is not even worth redirecting to the political party. There is no substance here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails WP:POLITICIAN and the article consists mostly of rumor and speculation, which makes it a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Disqualify - Just pure rumors and coatracking. As much as I've never been a big fan of the policy, this is the reason why we have WP:BLP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify what you mean by disqualify? It is not a traditional comment on a deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pun. It's referring to the fact that she's a politician. I do it occasionally. As you can see in my edit summary, my !vote is actually delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I suspect not all closers of AfDs go deeper than the material on the page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camille and Kennerly Kitt

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

Subject of article is not notable, the article itself reads like a press release, includes irrelevant references, and misrepresents the references it does have. "Their music has been featured in worldwide mainstream media such as CBS News, The Huffington Post, The Huffington Post UK, The Huffington Post Chicago, National Geographic, BuzzFeed, The Soup, College Humor, Nintendo Life, and Yahoo! Music Canada." This statement is clearly not true, especially if one clicks through to Yahoo music link, which is just a random blog on yahoo music. The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos. (And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowtheory (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 March 2013‎

Comment: This was not originally put in exactly right, so I fixed the nomination.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known that the AFD action taken by Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) does not appear to have been done in good faith since she has stated on her talk page that she has no opinion on the matter, totally ignoring the guidelines listed at WP:AFD. Contrary to what this user stated above, she did not fix the nomination proposed by Knowtheory because this other user had chosen the WP:PROD approach instead. Since Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) claims on her talk page to be a very experienced Wikipedian, I believe she owes us an explanation for her behavior. Dontreader (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toykogirl has over 17,500 edits whereas Dontreader has in the neighborhood of 150; she knows whats going on and has experience dealing with newer editors who have trouble with the Afd process. From the various contribution histories, it appears as though Knowtheory attempted to place the Afd here but didn't know how to do it right.(diff) Tokyogirl79 simply did her job as an administrator and a Wikipedian and formatted the Afd properly. It's best to drop the unwarranted attacks on Tokyogirl79. Location (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known that the number of edits is irrelevant it's the quality that matters and just because you are an administrator should not mean that you can make false statements. The original template gave me the right to delete it and so I did I also gave reasons, so please explain, how that is vandalism. The vandalism was done by you Tokyogirl79 as the original template stated that it could be removed and another should not be put in its place, so way was one added. I vote that Tokyogirl79 should lose her administrator rights Robcamstone (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three of you, stop it. This is not relevant to the discussion. You're also incorrect, by the way - look at the time this was brought to AfD, and when Tokyogirl79 tagged the article - I think you should apologize, Robcamstone and Dontreader. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize to Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) for questioning her good faith. The information from the history of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article indicates that Knowtheory used a PROD approach, and later Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) switched it to an AFD. I had no other information to determine that it was Knowtheory who turned the situation into an AFD and opened this discussion page before Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) merely corrected the template on the article proposed for deletion. Thanks to Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) for pointing out my mistake. Again, I'm very sorry for implying that Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) may have acted inappropriately. I deeply regret this situation. Dontreader (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that I believe that only administrators should be allowed to propose the deletion of articles. It is quite simply wrong to let potential random haters put contributors through this disagreeable situation. We, the contributors to this article, have put many hundreds of hours of love, care and effort into creating and building this page. Wikipedia is all about contributing. Somebody tried to minimize me for having made only around 150 edits. Well, that is certainly better than senselessly trying to destroy a Wikipedia article. Dontreader (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as how it came up, it came up looking like an AfD because the user had begun placing it in AfD format. If it had come up in PROD format, at least proper PROD format, I'd have just ignored its removal. In any case, this is really a silly thing to argue about in the grand scheme of thing. Removing an AfD, even a malformed AfD, before it's had a chance to go through the rest of the AfD process, isn't proper procedure. Unlike the other deletion templates, once an article has been nominated for AfD it has to complete the process. You cannot stop an AfD by removing the template or trying to delete any of it. AfD is the one deletion template that cannot be removed unless it's such an obvious act of vandalism that it cannot be denied. The thing is, I have to assume good faith on behalf of other editors. The deletion argument seems to be easily argued per the below keep arguments, but I have to assume good faith on behalf of the deletion requester. The argument might not be the best one, but at the same time it's not filled with vitrol or an overly obvious attempt at shenanigans. I have to assume good faith. You can argue that the original nominator is someone who has a personal dislike of the band, but you'd have to prove that they did this out of spite and not just because they misread notability guidelines or underestimated the sources. The thing is, you can't prove that. The argument given by KnowTheory isn't phrased to where it'd be an obvious attempt at vandalism. You can try to say otherwise, but the thing is that we can't automatically say that this is an attack against the singers. If you can come up with a post by the same person on another forum that shows it's an attack, then groovy. Once I fixed the template, I cannot close the AfD because I'm technically involved. If the article is solid, it'll survive the process and the stronger the article is, the more likely it would be that the discussion would be closed early. If anything, sometimes deletion arguments like this can be good, as it'll make it easier to close or fight against any further attempts at deletion. Really, this is a big fuss over nothing. Someone requested an AfD and put forth a malformed nomination. I fixed it, all everyone else had to do was voice their keep rationales calmly and let them pile up until another administrator stepped in to speedy close it. Stuff like this has happened before and it'll happen again. One person trying to delete an article isn't going to get rid of or otherwise harm the article. Really, if not for a post on my talk page, this probably would have been your run of the mill AfD where someone posted an argument and it went solidly under the radar and would probably be kept. There's really no need to get as upset as people are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this is pretty much settled and we should call a moratorium on how this came to AfD and just focus on strengthening the article and its sources. If it's kept, which it looks like it will be, then this will only help guard it against other deletion attempts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion

Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. This article provides a large number of references and external links to prove notability and no attempt has been made by any editors to misrepresent links to create notability. All links are to valid sources.

If you read the comments on this articles talk page you will see the concerns the individual editors have had about proving notability. Constitutive advice and help would be more valid then an attempt to delete an article.

A list of the claimed miss represented references should have been posted so that editors could check and amend/fix any miss representations, if they exist.

Not clear how you can claim that The Huffington Post, CBS News Chicago Tribune and National Geographic are not valid.

The point about the discography section is not clear at all. They are a harp duet and their singles are all covers as listed, where is the problem with listing their singles even if they are covers?

I can see no reason for deleting an article just because it is yet to be completed. On that bases Wikipedia would have very little information and would have die out years ago.

The article and its talk page could do with being movied to Camille and Kennerly without the Kitt at the end as when searching Wikipedia for them it is unlikely a user would type in Camille and Kennerly kitt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a huge amount of fluff in there that needs cleaning, but I think they may well pass WP:GNG. I'll evaluate it later. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This article was created in December 2011, and had never been proposed for deletion. One can argue that the article needs improvement, but I cannot believe that here I am spending time to defend a page just because someone arbitrarily proposed it for deletion. Let's examine the arguments put forth by Knowtheory

1. "Subject of article is not notable"

This is an article about a biography of living persons; therefore, the subject of the article must be the living persons (Camille and Kennerly Kitt). Hence, you must be able to prove that the subject of the article is not notable. Exactly which parameters/guidelines are you using for your claim?

2. "the article itself reads like a press release"

I disagree entirely. That's just your opinion. Besides, even if you were hypothetically correct, please provide a Wikipedia link which states that an article that reads like a press release should be considered for deletion. There are articles on Wikipedia that are biographies of living persons, which I have encountered, that do read like press releases, and have not been deleted.

3. "includes irrelevant references"

You did not specify which ones, and besides, since when do articles get proposed for deletion because they have included irrelevant references?

4. "and misrepresents the references it does have."

That is a false statement. You cited one reference to claim that the article in general misrepresents the references it does have. If you question the validity of the Yahoo! Canada source, we can debate that, and, as I said, the article can be improved, but your assertion is false. There are plenty of excellent references. So far, you have not provided a single reason for drastically proposing this article for deletion.

5. "The remaining news links are predominately web pieces linking to their youtube videos."

This statement makes no sense at all. If a completely independent news website featuring the artists happens to include links to their YouTube videos (as is the case with Nintendo Life and CBS News), why is that wrong? Which Wikipedia guideline states that such a situation constitutes a reason for proposing the deletion of an article?

6. "And a last point, their discography seems to only include covers"

Again, provide a Wikipedia link with a guideline stating that if an artist performs covers of songs, and not original material, that artist is not worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Now, I'd like to ask the Wikipedia community if there is anything that can be done in the future to prevent random users from proposing the arbitrary deletion of a page. This was such a waste of time for me and naturally for the community members that have to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Any advice on how to improve the article is most welcome. Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to pass WP:GNG based on sources in the article (namely, those from the Huffington Post, of which there are plenty, the CBS News piece, and the more reliable of the smaller circulation papers in the article), they have had a supporting role in a film (not enough on its own to meet any guideline, but it helps) and have been featured modelling in at least the cover of Nat Geo. They also appear to have had a fairly notable modelling career, IF someone can find a decent ref for the following sentence, taken from their About page: "for three consecutive years, Camille and Kennerly were cast as live runway models for Seventeen Magazine/JC Penney at “Rock Your Prom” fashion events." This article needs nuking of some rubbish, and some references are indeed inappropriately used, but as far as I can establish, this is a notable duet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion! I apologize in advance if I am not allowed to vote because I started this article. I am not a seasoned wikipedia editor, but I rather regularly do small updates on 3 different wikipedia articles of twin duos that interest me. I believe this article to be the most notable of the three. This article has been here for a long time and the Harp Twins are even more well-known and notable than they were when I made this article. I did a lot of research before beginning this article and I truly believe it to fit the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I certainly did not try to write my original article about Camille and Kennerly to read like a press release. I apologize for any unintentional "fluff". I added as many sources as possible to verify all of the information in the article, some of which have since been removed by other editors to make it more streamlined, I believe. Thank you again everyone for your input and I hope this article remains on Wikipedia. crowdsalesmed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely allowed to have an opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed and encouraged. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It serves the project that this remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of blog posts saying look at this cool YouTube video an a piece where they talk about themselves (exclusion fromwp:music#1) does not IMO add up to significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First of all, it seems to me that you appear to be minimizing the notability of blogs; however, The Huffington Post is described in its Wikipedia article as a blog, yet there is consensus in the Wikipedia community that The Huffington Post is notable, or else it wouldn't have an article of its own. This is relevant because Camille and Kennerly Kitt and their music videos have been the subject of three works published by The Huffington Post alone, including an interview which also mentions their acting careers. Secondly, you brought up wp:music to make your case. Well, if we examine that page carefully, we'll see that you made a mistake:

The page reads, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". I will focus on the first criterion:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". The page clarifies the meaning of trivial coverage: "such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." This is not the case of the sources cited in the article that is being discussed. Also, apart from the three notable Huffington Post sources, I'll just add two more which are definitely not blogs; one of them is CBS News online, and the other one is the online version of one of Italy's top two newspapers in terms of circulation: La Repubblica. Yes, their music videos are mentioned, but so are they, even with a reference to their acting careers in the case of La Repubblica. You are oversimplifying their coverage in these five notable articles, but the undeniable mistake that you made was to take the phrase "significant coverage" out of context because that phrase is mentioned twice in that page you cited, but in the Recordings section, and in the Concert Tours section. Therefore, they are notable because they meet the first criterion. Dontreader (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't questioned those sites notability, you seem to be mixing up notability and reliability.

They are not notable articles, were is the coverage about that first Huffington blog post, nowhere cause it's not notable. A blog post saying look at this wired sex trope is not the sort of independent reliable coverage needed to build a WP:BLP.

This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must emphasize that you brought up wp:music to make your case for deletion. Again, according to that page, it is sufficient for a musician or ensemble to be deemed notable if the following criterion is met: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." You can argue that the five articles that I cited are not notable, but I have already established that they are not "trivial", plus they are not "self-published", and they are "independent from the musician or ensemble itself" (except for the Huffington Post Chicago interview). Therefore, all I have to do is demonstrate that these sources (let's exclude the interview) are "reliable" in order to establish that the ensemble is notable. Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources, you have no way to deny that these sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, these sources "directly support the material presented in the article and are appropriate to the claims made." Additionally, these sources appear in "respected mainstream publications". Honestly, you will encounter great difficulty if you try to prove that these sources arr not reliable, but of course you are free to spend your time on that endeavor. Finally, having established that the ensemble is notable according to wp:music, your effort to disqualify a source (and the entire article that is being discussed) because of the phrase "weird sex trope" is irrelevant, as well as your assertion that "This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos." (a claim that is merely your opinion, not a fact, by the way). Thanks for your input. Dontreader (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That first Huffington Post article also says, "Yes, there have been other attempts to cover Ramin Djawadi's haunting tune before, but this one is now the only one." Therefore, I don't see how you can maintain your claim that "This is just yet another case of blogs passing around viral YouTube videos." Dontreader (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the other way around. Blogs are generally not reliable sources but exceptions do apply, it needs to be shown why there should be an exception. The verifiablity section you point says use with care, this is especially so with BLPs. It talks of possible use if the writers are professional but these blogs lack a byline so that does not. Lets look at the blog posts themselves, puffy pieces saying look at this YouTube video with a little bit of fleshing out with bio info cribbed from the twins website. They lack any depth on independent editorial analysis. Not good enough for BLPs. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought up The Huffington Post, the online version of CBS News, and the online version of La Repubblica, you said that you had not questioned the notability of those sites; therefore, please explain why you seem to be claiming that articles from those sites are not reliable. And please tell me which statements in the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page that use these articles as sources might not be true. Do you question that their music videos have received millions of views? Do you suspect that they are not really the ones that play the harps? That they are not true blondes? That they are not really twins, and that instead it's all a hoax? What information backed by these sources are you doubting exactly? Dontreader (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable and Reliable are two different things. Please take some time to read up about those two different concepts.

Your stupid strawmen do not help here. I have not here questioned the info, just the sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the others that have stated that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It should remain and be improved over time through editing. Camille and Kennerly are notable harpists as The Harp Twins both with live performances such as Cusp Conference, and online they are YouTube stars with over many millions of views and growing rapidly. They also have had supporting roles in several notable films including Politics of Love with Bollywood superstar Mallika Sherawat and a 2013 DreamWorks film with Vince Vaughn. bollywooddancer7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really thing a conference appearance and a few supporting roles is good enough for WP:ENT. If so please detail how. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose just for the sake of argument that they do not meet WP:ENT. I have proven that they meet wp:music, so then you cannot be in favor of the deletion of the article even if we suppose they don't meet WP:ENT. You could propose that the article be modified, but not deleted. Dontreader (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proven, you've argued. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dontreader. I did not write that this was their only performance, I wrote "live performances such as". Cusp Conference was just one example. You also ignored their YouTube fame. This article clearly at least meets wp:music and I am not the only one on this talk page to believe that it also meets WP:ENT. bollywooddancer7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A large list of live performances like that do not satisfy WP:ENT. Neither does YouTube "fame". Like yourself others who have said they meet ENT haven't said how (WP:JUSTAPOLICY) in away that actually matches ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with previous Keep votes. harpistamary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gideros Studio

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references - provided refs are press releases, blog entries, and a youtube video; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - This is a debate about whether to DELETE the Gideros entry from the world's most comprehensive encyclopaedia. There should only be one question debated here: "Is Gideros NOTEWORTHY?" Aurigin (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ixi browser

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

This freeware web browser appears to fail WP:N. Several searches in Google News archive and Google Books are only providing press releases and tangential mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 15:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional, looks like a con. Hekerui (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British television content rating system

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

This article is entirely false, and no references are cited to support the basis of the content of this article. Kiddie Techie (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 applied The UK usually has self-regulation and BBFC ratings to go by, and certainly doesn't go by this rating system at all (the editor could have at least not done the 'system' in non-symmetrical MS Paint form). Possible redirect to Television content rating systems#United Kingdom would be proper for this after deletion. Nate • (chatter) 08:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Chambers

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

No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate that she meets the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO. Qworty (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a couple of credits on Allmusic ([48]) and a review of one of those albums where she is mentioned ([49]) but that isn't nearly enough to support an article. Not yet ready for an article - maybe if the album comes out and gets enough coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the credits are background vocals, not really anything significant. I deleted the hyperlinks to allmusic that were directly in the article.Rayman60 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this person satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find substantive coverage either, only mentions. This article talks about plans to publish something, that is not sufficient. The frontpage of her website claims Grammy nominations, but her "About me" page states only that she was submitted for consideration. Hekerui (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She doesn't actually have a "Grammy nomination." Her name was submitted to be considered for a Grammy nomination, but then rejected. This is the basis on which she claims to have been "nominated" for a Grammy. She is a non-notable background singer without WP:NMUSIC in her own right. Qworty (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, maybe I did not state it clearly enough. Hekerui (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Holden

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

No WP:RS whatsoever to indicate that she meets the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO. Qworty (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found another article ([50]) - the trouble is all the coverage seems be very localized to Toledo, and the Toledo Blade in particular. I'm not sure someone getting a few pieces of coverage in their local paper is enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. The Blade is a major daily and a RS, and I see no requirement in MUSICBIO about fame outside a particular region. The problem for me is that the article as currently written has almost no info and no sources, although such info and sources do exist. I'm not really willing to improve it myself and it's not a good article as-is. So I guess I'd vote "keep if it can be improved?" Sorry, this is my first Afd, maybe I should go read up on the guidelines. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Hérouxville, Quebec. Spinning Spark 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hérouxville, Code of Conduct

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

This seems to quite clearly fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, what actually happened here is that this content used to be in the main article on Hérouxville, Quebec until User:Veillg1 spun it out to its own article in January of this year. It warrants mention somewhere, certainly — for one thing, it was the single overriding issue that completely swamped and upended the Quebec general election, 2007 — but you're right that it doesn't need its own separate article. In fact, it originally started off as a separate article called Hérouxville Standards back in 2007, but quite rightly got redirected to the article about the town within a couple of months — thus creating the subsection which just got forked back off here. Merge back to Hérouxville, Quebec and then delete this title as an unwarranted content fork. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge certainly sounds appropriate per Bearcat's explanation. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoTrusted

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

1. sources fail WP:GNG WP:CORP. (unrelated to AfD COI / SPA creator) Widefox; talk 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability per WP:CORP and reads like an WP:ADVERT DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in secondary sources including PC Magazine, Tech 2, and CNN Money, indicates likelihood of even more secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources helpful: yes, yes and no (incidental mention). Both are about separate products, nothing so far on the company, not sure they pass WP:CORP. Widefox; talk 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources in the article. Incidental mentions otherwise. Not seeing notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another Internet business advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced to patents and press releases. Release-time reviews of products don't go far for notability either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Tolley

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

I brought this to AfD because this article is fairly old and I doubt that the author will come back from their half-decade retirement to address the PROD. Letting a PROD expire on an old article with no discussion didn't seem like it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia.

Subject does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ARTIST.

Searching for coverage is difficult as there was a David Tolley that was an amateur golfer and a rather notable David Tolley who is a musician (although I'm not sure he's notable by WP standards as his fame came mostly from one event where he received a great deal of coverage after being pulled out of the audience to perform on Carson).

A Google News search provides no hits for the subject of this article and in a Google News Archive search, I could only find one mention of Tolley (the one in this article) that I wouldn't consider significant coverage in the first 6 pages of results. The article provides one article that's an interview with Tolley and the source seems to be reliable, although it's not a particularly notable source (ABC.net.au is not affiliated with American Broadcasting Company).

The subject may be notable but I'm not finding any proof that he has received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources (more than one). I can't find any proof of having released music on a notable label, winning any major award, or having made any major contributions to any of his listed fields. The subject may be notable in the future but doesn't seem to be now. Perhaps someone else will have more luck searching for coverage. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I decided to look into Australia Adlib, the source that published the interview with Tolley. I couldn't find much other than that Jon Rose created the website for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'm not sure if that implies anything but I didn't want to downplay the notability or reliability of Australia Adlib because of my lack of knowledge regarding Australian news agencies. Still, my reasoning for nominating the article for AfD hasn't changed at all. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good coverage in Jackson, Adrian (28 September 1993), "David Tolley Returns At Centre Of Fascinating Trio", The Age and CAWTHORNE, ZELDA (29 June 1999), "NUDES WITH A SECRET.", Herald Sun. There is also multiple others which don't go into as much depth. (One of his groups, THAT, may also be notable). If the musician you are talking about above is the improv jazz musician then it appears it is the same Tolley, check out his website and see who he works with, it matches up with what you'll find in sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start off with addressing that they may be the same person. Here is the painist Tolley's website where you can see his picture and the video of him performing on Carson where you see that he obviously wasn't born in 1936 as that would have made him 49 years old. Here's the website of the synth playing, sculptor David Tolley. I also found this CV for the sculptor that shows much but specifically that he's not a pianist from the US.

Between your new source and the curriculum vitae I just found, I'll have to reassess my nomination but at any rate, I think it's clear that there is a musician/sculptor named David Tolley who is the subject of this article and pianist David Tolley who is a different person.

To help the search, do you have a link for that "David Tolley Returns At Centre Of Fascinating Trio" article? As it was published in a Melbourne paper, I'm guessing it's about the sculptor/musician and the title would imply that it's significant coverage of the subject of this article. Not sure I need to even verify. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a different musician. My guess was wrong. No I can't give you a link to that article. If you have Factiva access you can see it there. It's about the same guy, details in the article match up to his website. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather torn. You only provided one that's behind a paywall. Assuming it constitutes significant coverage from an independent and reliable source, the source given in the article is not independent as the writer has worked with the subject of the article. Even if it was independent, we're really scraping the barrel here. I'd probably change my !vote to neutral and could see arguments going either way. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
duffbeerforme, do you have anymore references? If you do, I think we can conclude this discussion rather easily. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for many of the reasons detailed by the nominator. Judging by Tolley's CV and his website, he doesn't claim to have done anything of great note ...in fact he has his fingers in so many pies he may have spread himself too thinly! The article is a one-line stub so can be easily recreated if someone discovers anything compelling offline. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple case for such a short stub. Per nom it doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking into account the two sources I provided that provide indepth coverage of Tolley could you please explain why you think he does not meet WP:GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sionk. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been added to the article, and discussion above is not making it clear whether many exist. Ping me on talk if more sources are presented and I may reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chickbusters

The article was listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage, but due to someone removing the AFD tag, the article was not deleted. I am re-listing here, and reposting the votes garnered at the previous deletion discussion. Feedback ^☎ 04:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete- Without the minor weekly matches, I see a no notable tag team without feuds HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable. --2.136.171.116 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Never did anything notable as a team. The first two [The Blondetourage and The Chickbusters] were never even officially tag teams unless I missed something. STATic message me! 03:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This one on the other hand might be salvagable. However it's a bit of a shoot because it's based on the real life friendship between the two, and that's hard to source. I'll abstain on it for that reason. BerleT (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a friendship notable enough to be the basis of an article? I'm pretty sure many friendships are formed backstage in all of wrestling, we can't have articles for each one. Feedback ^☎ 21:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not enough notability to be a separate article, I bet the info is already in the main articles and this is totally redundant. MPJ -US 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Really? 1st of all, when you are in a offical tag team you put the info in not only the individuals page, but the team page as well. 2nd of all,they are notable they are feuding right now! Did you not see this weeks RAW? By DJ8946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ8946 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And feuding is the opposite of teaming, so what is your point? Individually they are notable, no doubt, but their limited work as a team was so minor. MPJ -US 11:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that you don't think they will ever be an offical tag team again? There is no doubt they will. There is no doubt they will have a storied history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ8946 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we call crystal-balling. Feedback ^☎ 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what has to occur for this to be a notable page? — Preceding unsigned DJ8946 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC) comment added by DJ8946 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

To be notable as a tag team: duration (no a tag team about 2 months), matches (no weekly matches in weekly shows, notable matches) feuds or storylines

(the team didn't have any notable storyline or feud) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well they did have 2 feuds, 1 was with Alicia Fox, Tamina, & Rosa with Natalya. Then after Natalya turned heel they had a feud with the Divas of Doom. & Right now they have a notable feud with each other. & They were an team for a year not including their time in FCW. --DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fisrt feud was a minor feud, based in weekly matches. Second had a few matches in weekly shows. No big feuds, like Team 3D vs Beer Money or Edge & Christian vs The Hardys.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty principle for the short-time Fourier transform

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

Uninterpretable essay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has the form of a mathematical exposition complete with equation numbers, perhaps copied from a paper or a book, rather than an encyclopedic article. Despite that, the prose is somewhat garbled and makes a straightforward subject hard to understand. The uncertainty principle in the context of STFTs is already discussed at Short-time Fourier transform#Resolution issues and the Gabor limit at Uncertainty principle#Signal processing and Fourier transform#Uncertainty principle. The article, in its current state, doesn't really add anything to these discussions. A good encyclopedic article on this subject could be written on the topic (that is, the topic is clearly notable), but the current article isn't it. --Mark viking (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Short-time Fourier transform#Resolution issues, per Mark Viking's reasoning above. Ray^Talk 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing with Mark Viking's assessment that the other expositions are much better. I don't think it's worth a redirect. Is anyone likely to type "Uncertainty principle for the short-time Fourier transform" into that little search box? Dingo1729 (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bulk of this article was created in a single edit; the same is true of the other article created by this editor, Expansion in spectrograms (also being considered for deletion). That sure raises red flags. Both articles include Time-Frequency Analysis by L. Cohen in the references. If someone has access to this book, they may be able to determine whether it is a copyright violation. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 as copyvio. Good call, RockMagnetist. I can confirm that at least the lead paragraph and certain other sections are lifted wholesale from Cohen's book. I suspect the other sections are too, but from different chapters from the unitarity of the tone, but I've seen enough to call for a speedy. Ray^Talk 19:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just got hold of Cohen's book, too. It's a lot more interpretable as section 3.4 (same name as this article, but in the context of a chapter on the Uncertainty Principle, where it makes sense). Pure copyvio. Dicklyon (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have blanked the page and listed it as a copyright violation. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion in spectrograms

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

Uninterpretable essay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article looks like a badly copied version of some paper or book based exposition on this topic. A quick look at the article revealed both a wrong title in one of the references and a couple of serious math errors in the first equation. The topic itself is likely notable, as expanding time frequency transforms in terms of spectrograms can speed up computation of these quantities. But the current article would require quite a lot of work to both convert it to an encyclopedic format and to eliminate the other probable errors in the prose and math. Normally, I'd say 'keep' for a notable topic. but it may be better in this case to blow it up per WP:TNT and start over. I'm on the fence, so no recommendation yet. --Mark viking (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bulk of this article was created in a single edit; the same is true of the other article created by this editor, Uncertainty principle for the short-time Fourier transform (also being considered for deletion). That sure raises red flags. Both articles include Time-Frequency Analysis by L. Cohen in the references. If someone has access to this book, they may be able to determine whether the two articles are copyright violations. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other article that Rockmagnetist found was clearly a copyvio. I haven't been able to do the same with this article yet, but suspicions of possible copyvio, when compounded with its essay-like and unencyclopedic nature, lead me to conclude that Wikipedia would be better off without this article. Ray^Talk 19:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as largely a copyvio of Cohen's book. I thought this looked like it was copied from somewhere. Most of the article comes from section 13.7 of Cohen's book. The lead section is copied directly from the lead para of the section. The first part of the General class section, the Hermitian functions section and the Complex distribution are all copied from Cohen section 13.7. The first few equations from the Bilinear transform subsection come from another source. I'm no copyvio expert, but the evidence looks pretty convincing. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have blanked the page and listed it for copyright violation. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. 28bytes (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abeege & Abooge

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

Article about a non-notable fictional series. Unable to find any sources to establish notability. May be a hoax. - Mr X 03:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems non-notable and might even be a hoax as the nom mentioned. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 05:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks made up. Two of the references appear to be to films based on Jules Verne novels. Paul Marston (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: arguments that the topic has not been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. Aside from the concerns over poor sourcing, there appear to be BLP concerns which also do not appear to have been effectively rebutted. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Polack

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

As this stands today, it's a stub with one ref of poor reliability. I tend to be more of an inclusionist when it comes to 'net memes, but at this stage this doesn't look like a keeper. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable trivia. Mcewan (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be a perectly adequate and referenced vesion in the history - so I have reverted to that version. [51]. Giano 14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard of that little thing called BLP? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. That vesion is not perectly adequate and referenced. It's junk.Volunteer Marek 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of references in version as pointed out by Giano (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be more than adequately referenced to meet basic notability requirements. If it's to be argued that the sources used are unreliable, then it should be explained why they are unreliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the version restored by Giano is not based on reliable sources. This HAS been explained on talk if someone actually bothered to look. NIE (weekly magazine) is NOT a reliable source, for facts and certainly NOT for BLP related stuff (it's a smear mag/tabloid). The rest is just "random crap found on the internet". Nothing to indicate the subject's notability. Nota bene - even if this is kept (and it's hard to AGF some of these votes) the BLP material sourced to NIE and other junk goes. That's just BLP policy and is not subject to a vote.Volunteer Marek 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP delete and salt Even the well-referenced versions of this indicate that it's mostly about making a hash out of one innocent person's life. Also, once I exclude us and Meme Generator, I get next to nothing on this; the references all seem to be in Polish. There is of course going to be a lot of push to keep this, just as was the case for some notorious examples of the past. They should be dismissed in favor of this person's privacy. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earlier versions make it clear that this is an egregious BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I concur with above opinion that this is clear BLP violation based on very questionable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There now appears to be an edit war by User:Volunteer Marek who having gutted the excellent content to bring the page down to deletion standard, now seem to be obsessed with having it deleted. I suggest the content and references are restored. Giano 18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "obsessed with having it deleted". I cut out all the crap and BLP violating stuff several months ago, back in December, and I was fine with the shortened stub version remaining on Wikipedia for the time being - i.e. I didn't nominate it for deletion myself. But since it has been brought to AfD, yes, the subject is not notable (he's some poor provincial desk cop who's life has already been messed up by this stupid meme thing).Volunteer Marek 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are, you are completely obsessed and I shall get to the bottom of why that is - trust me on that one. The encyclopaedia is full of far worse page with far more dodgy references, but this page has stung you; you have been heavily editing it, and now your mate nominates it for deletion. That is most odd - most odd indeed. Giano 18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, Giano, the only person "obsessed" here is you. Why is that? And if you know of far worse page on the encyclopaedia with far more dodgy references, let me know and I'll cut crap out of them too.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I based my response here solely on your preferred version, not on the truncated version favored by others. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so ridiculous. Giano 18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just simply not notable, and agree that the expanded version was an egregious violation of BLP. --Nug (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no BLP as the name has been removed lol. Giano 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a "lol" comment right there.Volunteer Marek 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 19:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speedied, deleted and restored before, so I don't think PRODs/speedies apply.Volunteer Marek 20:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think G10 applies, but not for that reason. G10 can apply even after prods/speedies/restorations. But I can't comprehend why G10 would apply in this case; Poeticbent, would you elaborate please? HaugenErik (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not reveal the name of the civic politician from the named city in Poland who's been attacked. Our administration is aware of that. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that upon coming to that article "it's an attack page" is a sensible conclusion one might arrive at. It's what I thought when I first saw it, which is why I also nomed it for G10 back in the day. However, there was ... "some" ... discussion about it here and it got restored. I'm guessing Poeticbent thought the same thing when he saw the page.Volunteer Marek 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was more discussion here [52].Volunteer Marek 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this AfD was closed because the page had been speedy-deleted G10 by Merovingian (talk); but that deletion was reversed by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk), so I declined a further G10 nomination and have re-opened the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I am also finding rather strange here, is that when this article was first created, Piotrus (the nominator here) far from objecting to it, actually thanked it's creator for writing it [53]. No mention of any unhappiness then; I think most people will find that very odd. Giano 09:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I thanked the creator for writing about Poland. Nonetheless, after further examination of the article and sources I concluded that this article is non-encyclopedic and needs to go. Nothing strange there. Good-faithed efforts should be commended, even if they end up getting reverted/deleted. That's what creating a friendly environment is all about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Piotrus; I had not realised you were such a warm, caring and thoughtful person. Giano 14:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy you realized that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernicious trivia of no proven notability. One mention in a sentence or two in a Web article is hardly the basis for an article. Some poor bloke has his life ruined by internet trolls and this "encyclopaedia" has to immortalise it? Sorry, not seeing why. Paul Marston (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on policy Avoid victimisation is a vital policy. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM and "Presumption in favor of privacy": "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Since the sources in this case are so poor this applies even more here. Paul Marston (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Cirt. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this is wikipedia not collection of racist stereotypes and personal attacks against individuals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I accept Volunteer Marek's assessment above of the 8 sources cited in the article.[54] No one has refuted that assessment. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Salt if repeatedly recreated, but I did not find any evidence of that. The meme ruined the police officer's life, but I don't think listing his name in the Wikipedia article[55] an egregious BLP violation since it was sourced, although it was correct to remove the name per BLP. Delete per WP:GNG - lack of sufficient source material. If the topic ever gets past WP:GNG, it still would need to get past WP:BLP before there can be an article on the topic. The sourced BLP material itself does not meet WP:BLP, so the BLP information in the Advice Polack article should not be disbursed into other Wikipedia articles and the AfD closer should make a comment towards this. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to image macro; not notable enough for its own article. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 14:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a particularly popular image macro or meme, and it never was. Proof if this is the fact that all the notability is tied to the issue with the person whose photograph was used to create it. So it fails WP:GNG as what it's supposed to be, and it's WP:BLP1E essentially, as an issue related to the person. Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS as well. No matter how one looks at this, it does not merit inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Ten years from now, nobody will know or care. There isn't much in the way of reliable coverage. I am also troubled that an innocent man has had his likeness appropriated and used in a way that makes his life miserable. We at Wikipedia should consider such factors when an article's notability it dubious. The benefit of covering this (and thereby expanding the man's pain) is so small, that it just isn't worth it. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, & BLP contravention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, "pernicious trivia" is a perfect characterization. The only fruits to harvest from this article's existence are divisiveness and recriminations between editors. Only on WP do editors lobby to feed the cancer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it can be, and has been, easily stripped of any BLP concerns, replying on the sources which should be acceptable for non-BLP purposes. As for the BLP concerns, I believe the article written by me highlighted his plight in an encyclopedic and non-dismissive way. The creation of memes involving unintended victims is a real cultural problem. He has been quite keen to raise the profile of his own situation, appearing on TV, etc. But I can accept that the aspect relating to the living person brushes against the BLP policy, so I accepted editors wanting to avoid covering that in depth. In response to an email I received accusing me of being polophobic, I do write articles degenerating Aussies too: She'll be right. However, Australians in general are happy to agree with the negative stereotypes tagged on us. :P I also write articles that happen to annoy people of various cultures, nationalities, religions, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC) (p.s. on holidays atm; not able to dedicate time to this article until Tuesday)[reply]
Delete for BLP, and specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Unfortunately that policy contradicts itself--the first sentence says that not every detail should be included even when well-sourced and the second sentence says the article should be "pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" which literally read doesn't allow deleting anything that couldn't be deleted anyway. I would, however, go with the last sentences: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Reporting on a meme meant to disparage a person amounts to prolonging the victimization. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability isn't the only reason to keep an article, and given the obvious BLP problems I think we're better off without. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt — per Mango: repeated recreation seems likely. Right now, there's zero notability, and it's not a meme that passes GNG. And it has clear BLP problems. Cf. Little Fatty, which has substantial coverage, and whose subject even sought some measure of media attention. JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to say unless sources are actually evaluated The version of the article currently visibly is a stub one editor insists on. This [56] is a fuller, sourced version. There is an attempt underway at Talk:Advice_Polack#Sources.2C_one_by_one to evaluate the reliability of the those various sources. I hope editors familiar with Polish media and culture will join the discussion there. Until that's done I don't see how notability can be evaluated, and since presumably very few of the editors commenting above could possibly have read and understood the sources, it's hard to see how there can be any meaningful consensus drawn. EEng (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It disturbs me that (IMO) if this were some other identifiable ethnic or religious group the PC police would be out here in force. But, what the f**k, it's only the Poles, let's flog them some more. I respect that some believe this is some meaningful meme, but, also respectfully, this is predatory and degrading content not worthy of this project. The source cited in the article (as it stands) rather makes the point that once upon the time the Internet was home to genuinely humorous images but that these days it's mainly crap that's not funny at all. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the context of your other comments. EEng (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is anything that amounts to (a) significant coverage in (b) significant sources. This has all the more appearance of being a product of cruising around for what one can find rather than a new Internet meme bursting onto the scene and meriting encyclopedic coverage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably your determination started with a review of the sources and some thought about their reliability. If so, can you please contribute your thoughts to the discussion on source reliability at Talk:Advice_Polack#Sources.2C_one_by_one? EEng (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have assessed the reliability and the notability of the sources. We're also very aware BLP considerations strongly apply here. --Paul Marston (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Giano and John Vandenberg. Piotrus noted on this issue in December when the article was created that he believes the article is notable, and the BLP aspects can be dealt with by removing his name. I think it raises the obvious question: Why has he nominated this article, and why now? I'm concerned by the issues raised by Giano here, and also that an editor has emailed the article creator and accused him of "Polonophobia". This is odd, since this meme began on the Polish internet (by Polish internet users), and is dealing with stereotypes that Poles relate to themselves.

With relation to WP:BLP, we can be guided in this way by Star Wars Kid which does not mention the persons name at all, even though sources give his name. I'm looking at the discussion on sources and am seeing that the sources used are reliable, and that there appears to be a "misunderstanding" of those sources by those who wish for it to be deleted. I think this is either done because they are not familiar with Polish sources, or that they are deliberately misinterpreting the sources. The subject is clearly notable, and this edit by Giano is clearly in compliance with WP:BLP - maybe just delete the external link to the police website. - Jetro (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"they are deliberately misinterpreting the sources". Care to back this accusation up with evidence? You can read Polish then? Can Giano? --Paul Marston (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Paul. I did not intend for it to be portrayed that you personally were misinterpreting sources, I apologize if it appeared that way to you.

I do, however, believe that you may not be fully familiar with the presented Polish sources. At Talk:Advice_Polack#Source1 you stated that Hiro is a webzine. As John Vandenberg points out it is a printed magazine, on pop culture in Poland, and the article in question was published in this edition on pages 38-39. But others are either deliberately misrepresenting sources, or are playing down their reliability. We can't forget that Piotrus himself said the article was notable, but on the article talk page he is playing down the sources used. I am more concerned with Volunteer Marek though; here he states that NIE is ridiculing and trolling him, and that does not seem to be the case (read Nanobear's comments below). It isn't the first time that Volunteer Marek has engaged in such misrepresentation of sources. Given that he is fluent in Polish, one can only reasonably assume he's misrepresenting on purpose. Here is another example where he states the interview is only 30 seconds long. From approx. 1:34 to 3:30 the person is given an opportunity to make comments on the meme, and again from the 5:30 mark til the end of the expose he is again given more time for his comments - almost half of the TV report is devoted to him being given the opportunity to comment - a far cry from "more like 30 seconds". It would appear evident from the above comment and this comment that Volunteer Marek has not even watched the TV report, yet we are supposed to put credence in what he has to say on the issue. This is even harder to do, given his previous history of misrepresentation of sources. - Jetro (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the first time that] Volunteer Marek has engaged in such misrepresentation of sources - do I know you or something? Your accusation is pure nonsense. I have not misrepresented any sources. NIE *is* a trashy tabloid. It is NOT a reliable source on English Wikipedia. The links here [57] are to talk pages or user pages, or one or two instances where the source is used as a reference for itself. Somebody's lying to you, and you either can't be bothered to check yourself or are just happily following along with falsehoods for some reason. It is also NOT considered a reliable source on Polish Wikipedia. Same story is mostly true for the links provided here [58]. And the fact that a source is USED on a project does not make it reliable, just like because some Wikipedia article has some nonsense in it, does not mean the nonsense is true. It just means that crappy editing has slipped through the cracks. And the interview IS 30 seconds long, the program itself is 6 minutes. Again, you either didn't bother to actually check yourself or are happy to lie. The comment on Risker's page linked to the story about the TV program not the program itself, at least when I clicked on it. And both you and Giano REALLY REALLY need to quit it with the bait.

So I have "no history of misrepresentation of sources". Go away, and have fun slandering people somewhere else. Oh yeah, and Giano can take his goofy conspiracy theories and shove them where they belong. There is a real person who's already been hurt and damaged by this idiocy here, and putting some innane Wiki-politics in front of that is just ethically fucked up.

As to the meta issue. I couldn't give a flip about whether this meme and/or article is "anti-Polish". If someone needs to get their kicks in, Polack joke is over thattaway, you guys can have fun. What I do care about is that the article has serious BLP issues, the meme is non-notable, and it has already damaged the personal and professional life of the person involved. There's no way you can present this info - even if it was notable - without making it worse. Apparently quite a number of editors, most of whom I don't know and never interacted with, feel the same way. Note all the "delete and salt" comments. I actually wasn't even the first one to bring up WP:AVOIDVICTIM (I wasn't aware of it), it was others. But, that along with non-notability and BLP issues, is central here.Volunteer Marek 17:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro is hardly the most notable publication out there. Tomek Cegielski, the author of the article, is part of the "Redakcja strony internetowej" ("Editorial staff of the web page"), so it's hardly surprising it might be regarded as a webzine rather than a free newspaper. Cegielski has very little presence as a journalist elsewhere. The article devotes only a handful of sentences to the topic. Once again though, BLP issues are paramount.--Paul Marston (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal with BLP issues as per Giano, John Vandenberg and Jetro. It would appear that part of this discussion hinges on this NIE article, although there are other reliable sources. NIE is an anomaly in Polish media, in that it is vehemently anti-clerical (particularly anti-Catholic in stance), and it does use some vulgarity in some of its writings. Being anti-Catholic in Poland can equate to heresy in some quarters of society, especially amongst the right-wing and nationalist camps. NIE has moderate usage on Polish Wikipedia as a reliable source, including on BLP articles, and some limited usage on English Wikipedia as a reliable source. The NIE article itself provides background information on the meme, and an interview with the officer. In the interview, it is sympathetic to his story, allowing him to put forward his views. It doesn't appear to be trolling him, etc. It also notes that he was set to retire at the end of 2012. At the very end of the article in the last sentence it does include a profanity, but it isn't directed at the subject. The NIE article/interview is mentioned in this NaTemat.pl article, and it doesn't say anything negative about the interview that NIE conducted. NIE would indeed appear to be a reliable source here. Nanobear (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand what, in your eyes, makes this article encyclopedic. You also felt Polandball was encyclopedic. I regret that we appear to, both of us, fall in historically opposing camps. It might be better for this to be decided by editors not at odds over Eastern Europe (i.e., less myself, yourself, Giano,...) so this doesn't spiral out of control. Giano has already played his malignant EEML conspiracy alive and well accusations card elsewhere, I would prefer to believe we've moved on. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough Vecrumba, I would like to believe that too, but, alas, I see no evidence of it - do you? Equally amusing, is the fact that I don't much like this page either, but that is not grounds for deletion. In fact, it meets all criteria for a page, a view which until very recently was shared by the nominator here, Piotrus. You talk of Polonophobia (is that even the right word) on Risker's TP, but you are missing the point: Advice Polack began in Poland on a Polish website and was created by Poles satirically to exemplify their own national vices. So yes, I am deeply saddened to see so many members so of the "former" Eastern European Mailing List turning out to vote here. Many of our Arbs were born yesterday Vecrumba - I was not. Giano 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is an example of "Polonophobia" or not is beside the point. Who cares. What IS important though is the fact that this page DOES NOT meet criteria for a page, rather it meets most of the criteria for deletion. Lack of notability. Unreliable sources. BLP issues. WP:AVOIDVICTIM. And it's hard to avoid the impression that some of the keep votes (the few there are) here are simply out of spite.Volunteer Marek 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Advice Polack began in Poland on a Polish website and was created by Poles". And yet the Hiro page says: "Najbardziej popularne memy powstałe za granicą, które dotyczą Polaków, to serie „Advice Polack” oraz „Polandball”."--Paul Marston (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano, well, I was surely born before you were. And I am sad to see supporters of the Putin's Russia/Soviet POV starting to pile on here. If you have evidence I'm conspiring please present it at the appropriate forum. I suggest unpiling here and leaving the matter to others and you attack me for conspiracy, that's rich. And, oops, neither offensive memes produkowane w Polsce. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly boy, I would imagine that I am least 40 years older than you - and I can assure you that I am not a Russian or a Bolshevik or whatever it is that they are currently calling themselves. However, you know; I know and he, she and it all know what is going on here. I do hope it won't have to be spread out on the table and result in some time-wasting and protracted Arbcase from which there will be no winner, but if necessary <sigh> I suppose that's where we will all have to go. Giano 20:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny man. Memes not made in Poland, not my age, you would do better to be less confident in the simple facts you express so confidently. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Given the fad of some British scholars to elevate Stalin to a great war leader and strategist, for example, ethnicity is surely not a predictor of leanings one way or the other although such accusations are made on a daily basis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Giano, John Vandenberg, Jetro, Nanobear. It clearly passes WP:GNG. Some people are very sensitive when it comes to memes, like people wanting to delete Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). ‎ Given the additional information presented by John Vandenberg on the article talk page, we should look at this. List of interviews directly relating to the Advice Polack/Pan Andrzej meme: [59] (August 2011), TVN24 (August 2012), NaTemat.pl (August 2012). List of interviews relating to other memes: Wydarzenia (January 2013) (relating to another internet meme in Poland), Telewizja Polska (January 2013) (a news report claiming that kwejk.pl and similar sites can have an effect on people's lives). Given that he's given 1 interview in 2011, 2 interviews in 2012 and 2 interviews in 2013, indicates that he is following the advice of the lawyer in the TVN24 report. That advice being, to speak often and draw attention to his case. Our responsibility is to portray his case in the article with respect, and this has been done with the version which Giano reverted to[60], which treats the issues in much the same way as Star Wars Kid (mentioned by Jetro above).--Razionale (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's isn't some extensive off-wiki canvassing going on with respect to this AfD then I'm Giano's uncle. Another random user showing up spouting what looks like a pre-rehearsed, pre-written set of arguments which have already been rebutted several times above, and once again completely ignoring the fact that we have a WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM policies. Pathetic and sad.Volunteer Marek 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Razionale...

link already dead
no prosecution over (identified) "greatest simpleton in Poland"
"ruined his life"
other case presented as example, testing the limits of decency, nothing to laugh about

So the question is, are we a repository for a meme identifiable with a specific person, the propagation of which meme will continue to ruin their life? The attention we propose to draw here with an article is part of the problem, not part of the cure. I'm sorry if I continue to see this as simply WP victimizing Poles in general and one specific individual in particular. This is why people leave this project, when victimization becomes "encyclopedic." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you guys are getting your wires crossed. Whoever is providing you with these supposed "sources" obviously doesn't speak Polish and it seems like neither do you. These sources which you link to above are general sources about how idiotic internet memes can fuck up real people's lives. True enough. But they do not establish the notability of this particular meme, some of them don't even mention it. You and Jetro, and yes, even JohnV, and others really need to get your story together and decide on a consistent - and verifiable way - of presenting these supposed sources before you start with the "Keep" votes.

And presenting the argument as "we must document the harm done to this person's life by this meme" is especially cynical and low down dirty.Volunteer Marek 00:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, please desist from accusing others of off-wiki canvassing simply because they disagree with your opinion. I found this discussion by way of this talk page discussion. My sources are notably from this and related pages here. You are also accusing a well-respeted member of this community and ex-Arb John Vandenberg of such behavior in your comments, and I think you should take stock of your brash comments against other editors in this discussion, including your comments directed against me. And you should apologize, now!

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is quite likely an interesting part of our BLP policy, but in this instance it is being misinterpreted and misapplied. By the number of interviews that the person in question has given, he is actually presenting himself as part of the story of the meme. The article as it was written is not prolonging or increasing the victimisation, but is very much in his favor. As other sources by John Vandenberg demonstrate, the meme and his directly-related story, has been used in Polish news media and some scholarly articles, on how internet memes can have an effect on others. In other words, I remain convinced. The above linked Star Wars Kid is a prime example of how we deal with such examples on this project.--Razionale (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your example has gone viral with millions of views. Here we have a meme originated outside Poland that is so unremarkable except for having pained the individual in question, and being yet another dumb Polacks not really funny joke, that the only sources are pretty much Polish ones kvetching about a retread of Polandball. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Piotrus asked me to comment. I haven't looked at what his position is. Looking for myself, the only conceivable way this could be kept is if all the revisions referring to an individual were revision-deleted, or, even better, the whole article, and an article on the meme itself started over. I don't see any evidence that it's important enough as a meme to justify that. When removing all objectionable content leaves something that isn't substantial, there;'s no reason to have an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the editors criticizing Piotrus for changing his mind on how notable this is: I don't see anything wrong with someone changing his mind upon closer reflection. You can criticize someone for inflexibly sticking to a point, but not for actually using his head. I agree with Piotrus and DGG above. I looked at the "full version" and don't see anything worth saving after the crap has been cut out. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOX renderer

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

Deprodded by creator. Original prod concern was "Software - no proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Please show on talk why this topic is notable." Nothing has been changed in the article since the prod nom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't much in the way of reliable sources out there. 3d-sphere.com has a number of articles on the NOX renderer, including two interviews here and here. 3d-sphere.com seems a bit more organized that just a blog, but I don't know if they are considered a reliable source. It may be that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; there hasn't been enough time for secondary sources to develop. Notable or not, it looks like a nice renderer. --Mark viking (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON. The software is currently in beta. It has few reliable secondary sources at this time. Of course, this may change once the renderer comes out of beta and gets some traction. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really seems to be very little that could be regarded as coverage in reliable independent sources: most of what is available is clearly promotional in one way or another. (Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, which has edited only about one business and its products.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jakubovic

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

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC. The only reference link is dead, and a Google search turned up mostly the subject's own social media, blogs, etc. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find significant coverage of the band or Jakubovic. Hekerui (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evermotion

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

Deprodded by creator. My original concern was "No indication of notability - seems to fail WP:CORP. Please explain on talk how this article is notable." Sources seem of poor reliability, some are self-published. The author has not added any sources since my prod, only remove some content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A review of the article and Google results appears to show that this article has not received the type of third-party in-depth coverage required by WP:CORP. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really seems to be very little that could be regarded as coverage in reliable independent sources: most of what is available is clearly promotional in one way or another. (Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, which has edited only about one business and its products.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chlamydophila

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

129.237.139.158 has nominated this article for deletion for the following reason: "Remove the Chlamydophila wikipedia entry. Chlamydophila is not an accepted nomenclature for these bacteria. Labeling or describing as such confuses students and scientist unfamiliar with the field. The Chlamydia community has evaluated the merit of this nomenclature and determined it to be unsupported. The published scientific report entitled 'Divergence without difference: phylogenetics and taxonomy of Chlamydia resolved.' described this exact resolution." I don't know much about the subject, so I am neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now – While PMID 19281563 has proposed to "reunite the Chlamydiaceae into a single genus, Chlamydia" based on whole genome sequencing results, Chlamydiaceae is a term that is still widely used in the scientific literature (see Chlamydophila search). Furthermore this nomenclature remains a controversial issue that has not yet been resolved (see NCBI Taxonomy Database: Chlamydia/Chlamydophila group). Boghog (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. BogHog is correct. The taxonomy of these bacteria is problematic. The splitting of the genus into two different genera has never been popular. It is however the currently accepted system of taxonomy. The ultimate deciders of this issue will be the International Journal for Systematic Bacteriology where all new species/genera etc are supposed to be published. Until such time as a decision has been made this page should remain.DrMicro (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - scientific controversy does not mean it is not a valid article; this is extremely well-sourced, with an NIH article and other peer-reviewed and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep but strong Edit. I think the nomination is enough evidence that the taxonomy is contentious, and the nominator should be asked to provide suitable text.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to Transwiki the page I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hostal Yebisah, Santa Eulària des Riu

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

advertising The Banner talk 01:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-wiki to Wikivoyage and Delete - basically a brochure for a nice but otherwise non-notable hotel. Stalwart111 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This small hotel is notable because it is one of the oldest hotels in this town being built just after world war two. I agree that it needs more work to bring it more in line with the standard hotel type article but deleting it is just a very unhelpful direction for this article. Wikivoyager is a complete waste of time at the moment,You can't find your way around the pages at all well at the moment and I can see it disappearing into oblivion eventually!!! stavros1 ♣ 07:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it needs is a few good sources that allow it to meet WP:GNG. If you have some, I'm sure people would be happy to consider them. I'm happy for it not to be transwikied; I only suggested as much because I thought someone might like to preserve their work. Stalwart111 08:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is now, it will disappear in oblivion on ENWP too. The Banner talk 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is Very Un-called for comment and unhelpful, This editor should consider Wikipedia:Civility if they wish to make a positive contribution to this disscussion. stavros1 ♣ 13:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Attitude If any Editor would like further proof of this editors bad attitude and bad language look at the answer given Here stavros1 ♣ 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, you are out of useful arguments so you get personal. Point taken, you loose. The Banner talk 16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Sources satisfying WP:N have not been identified. Wikipedia guidelines for notability do not grant inherent notability to something just because it is "the oldest (or newest, or largest, or smallest, or shiniest) in its town." Edison (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move This article should be Trans-wiki to Wikivoyage it content would be more appropriate on its own page there. Cheeseladder (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaster DeLonghi

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

Seems to be an attack page. Demeaning and un-encyclopaedic content. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a hoax. None of the references cited even mention this person, thus giving no indication he even exists. Google searches on the name also find nothing. Michitaro (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I have already tagged the article, requesting speedy deletion as an attack page (G10). --DAJF (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Cure

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

Non-notable video game with no reliable sources. Atlantima (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Atlantima (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any indication of notability. The game seems to have received only minimal coverage in reliable sources. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 08:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree - not seeing any evidence of notability in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of coverage--fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As the original nominator, I am changing to weak keep and will be WP:BOLD and close this, since there is only one other delete vote and there is obviously NOT going to be a consensus to delete, after 16 days. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Lee Row

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

This is a newly created article about a death row inmate. I am not sure whether or not this falls under WP:BLP1E, so I will take this to AfD. Right now, I am leaning weakly to delete, with the possibility of creating the "event" article, but I am definitely open to reconsideration on this. Safiel (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typically, capital murder cases receive so much WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over a significant period of time that they are not a single event that just comes and goes in the news. As death row goes on for many years, there is news coverage of appeals, etc. This case, besides being covered in news outlets, was also featured on The New Detectives and very likely other shows. Hellno2 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:PERP currently does not make an exception for those sentenced to death or even those who have been executed, so we're supposed to balance WP:GNG with WP:NOT#NEWS. At some point, this becomes a judgment call. Relatively substantial book coverage here. Location (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is against routine news, that being stuff that is reported every day and has no long term coverage. A triple homicide resulting in a death sentence, leading to the state's only woman on death row, is far from routine. This case has resulted in news coverage, book coverage (as you've shown), and an appearance on half an episode of a long running TV show that discussed the case in detail 12 years after the fact (and very likely other programs as well). It is hard to argue against the notability of something like that. The worst thing about this article is that the creator did a poor job of providing references. Hellno2 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that WP:NOT#NEWS only applies to "routine news". I place more emphasis on the phrase that includes "enduring notability". In 2011, there were 12,664 homicides in the US. I imagine that most of them had some news coverage about the event, the capture of the perp or perps, the pre-trial motions, the trial of the perp or perps, the sentencing of the perp or perps, the appeals of the perp or perps, and, in some cases, the execution of the perp or perps. In one sense, this is routine crime coverage. I agree that it is unusual for a woman to be sentence to death, but it is even more unusual for a woman to actually be executed. Once Category:Executed American women can be applied, then I think there is a better argument for keep. Location (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware, this article can be sourced by more than just news. It can be sourced by the book you pointed out (and perhaps many more books). It can be sourced by the TV show 12 years after the fact that I mentioned (and likewise, perhaps some others). In all, the subject has quite a diversity of sources. Hellno2 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the 12,664 homicides,only 1382 involve 2 or more victims. I can't find figures for 3 victims, but it would be a smaller proportion of that. I suggested some years ago, and still think that we should consider homicides as notable above a certain number of victims, because thats what the public and the press does also, and that press and public attention is what we're supposed to go by in WP:N. As a way of sorting out which ones we do cover, I continue to think it would have advantages over the vague qualifications in not news, which can be interpreted any way you please. I agree with the principle there, but it needs some objectivity. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per p. 25 of this report, 3.7% of all homicides in the US in 2008 (14,224 in the report mentioned previously) involved 2 victims (~526), 0.5% involved 3 victims (~71), 0.2% involved 4 victims (~28), and 0.1% involved 5 or more victims (~14). Given that a google search for "quadruple homicide" reveals that most of those events do not receive coverage outside of the local area, I think I would be reluctant to support a guideline that sets a particular number of victims as an objective standard for inclusion. (Similarly, I seem to recall a discussion that rejected automatic inclusion for people who were executed.) Coverage in reliable sources is a prerequisite for notability, so I think our focus should be on setting objective guidelines on various aspects of the coverage as WP:EVENT has attempted to do. In my opinion, biographical articles like this revolve around one or two particular events and, therefore, should be held to the standards set forth in WP:EVENT which are a bit more objective than WP:NOT#NEWS. Might be a good discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Location (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 00:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - True crime BLP-1E. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "keeps" have cited actual policies here that favor keeping; the "deletes" have not gone into such detail. I like those comments that say that there are a variety of different sources (news, book, TV). Dew Kane (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Hinze

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which discuss this voice actress in depth, existing source is essentially a resume, marked for sources for five years and two months. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not suggest notability, voice actors in Europe are rarely notable. Strongly suggest AfDing http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Hinze on de wiki (I don't know German enough to do so). The outcome may be of use to us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Education in Singapore. If anyone has a better target in mind feel free to edit it. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Park Primary School

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

I understand per a long standing precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools do not warrant their own articles. But as no article for Holland Grove Road (school's location) exists, where should I redirect? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize how small Singapore is. Basically a city on a small island... If Education in Singapore is blue, that'd be my choice of a redirect, unless there are district articles. If it is red, beats me. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at Google Maps I can see that this school appears to be in Holland Village and/or Buona Vista, it being unclear whether the boundaries of those districts are well-defined. We certainly shouldn't be deleting content for the purely technical, rather than encyclopedic, reason that we can't see immediately what the appropriate merge target would be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to - Henry Park Primary School website Timothyhouse1 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC) (as Transwiki)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Wiltshire

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

As one of the sculptors for Madame Tussauds London, Wiltshire has received some mention in passing in articles about the celebrities whose likenesses appear at the museum, but no in depth coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think that the recent coverage makes him notable. Would be enough for a historical sculptor. Modern ones are a bit iffy, but his name was mentioned in BBC, NYT... those are big outlets. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Mentioned at ..." is hardly the criteria we use for WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At best WEak keep -- Madam Tussauds is clearly notable, but how many sculptors does it employ? The most senior might be notable; the junior ones perhpas not. Without knowing how senior he is, I cannot be certain which side of the notability boundary to place him. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His seniority is not what determines his notability. The availability of significant coverage does. And that is lacking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Iron Bit

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

The evidence supporting this article is scant indeed. The physical description of the device is sourced to a blog, which is by its nature not a reliable source. The historical evidence refers to several devices that are called collars, but which the author insists are really this "iron bit" device, with no evidence to back up this connection. The Social Implications section appears to be the author's own conclusion, which would constitute original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poorly sourced. The big question here is whether the device actually existed. The source referring to an "iron collar" says nothing whatsoever about an "iron bit." Bad sourcing can be fixed; hoaxing is quite another matter. I don't have time to delve today, but I would think this decision should first target whether such an alleged device even existed outside of the realm of literary fiction. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing evidence that this purported device ever existed. Some slaves were held in iron collars beyond a doubt; there seems to be no reliable source demonstrating that some were bitted like horses. (It's illogical to do that, it would accomplish nothing... Humans did not pull plows or carts...) Carrite (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Poorly sourced indeed. I think this may be a case of WP:OR, sadly. Advice for the author: publish an academic or mainstream paper on this, then come back. Or find betters refs in secondary source. Ps. Based on User:AP_EN_4005#Student_Selections, this seems to be a student creation. Not listed at any Wikipedia edu program, seems like a regular rogue education assignment, by a well meaning but inexperienced teacher, with the predictable result (some student work deleted). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs cleanup, but is subject is not a hoax and has at least brief coverage in several books. The punishment of a slave with an "iron bit" is described in the book "Martha Washington, first lady of liberty," which shows up when you click the search option at the beginning of this AFD. If the google book search is modified to slave "iron bit" then more books are found describing it: "Animal Advocacy and Englishwomen, 1780-1900: Patriots, Nation, and Empire" By Moira Ferguson. "Seasoned to the Country: Slavery in the life of Benjamin Franklin" By Marilyn Wise discusses it. It is described in "Rough crossings" . More books mentioning the "Iron bit" as used on slaves are found at an appropriate Google book search: [61]. It is not a hoax at all. But mere existence does not establish notability. There seem to be enough good sources to turn the present article into a short encyclopedic article, but some conjecture and OR should be edited out and only reliable sources used. Edison (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided by Edison seem compelling, the new book by Wise, although self-published, seems best of the lot, frankly. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is highly unpleasnt subject, but potentially encyclopaedic. It may need improvement, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betrinac

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

Unwisely accepted from AfC - no reason is apparent why this brand should be notable DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, a commercial product that fails to explain its notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MuzikMafia. L Faraone 02:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moore (entrepreneur)

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

Does not pass WP:BIO. Some features in small publications related to his field. Beach drifter (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moore is an important person who was involved in the historical thing "He was part of launching a historical brand called the MuzikMafia. MuzikMafiz produced $40 Million dollars per year in revenue as well as had books, tv shows, and television appearances."

The muzikmafia book confirms his role in that organization. It would fit into the policy of the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavdiamanju (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- If that is what he is known for, then why not just add his name to the MuzikMafia article? Beach drifter (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too close to an advertisement and doesn't pass the GNGGeremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 00:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MuzikMafia. The company is notable, the proprietor is not. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MuzikMafia - agree; his company might meet notability criteria but he doesn't. Stalwart111 09:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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