Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At the current state of the article and the discussion, consensus is that this brevet general is not notable enough for inclusion. That may change if somebody finds more sources about him.  Sandstein  10:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hooper Stevenson

Robert Hooper Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and borderline fails notability guidelines for the military. While general officers are generally considered to be notable, his commission as a general was solely by brevet, not a permanent rank. Other than the fact that he held the rank at all, there seems little of military significance by this individual and the only references I can find are solely in a genealogical context. There were many hundreds of brigadier general brevets doled out during the Civil War, many for little more than patronage reasons, and the argument that all these individuals are notable seems somewhat ludicrous. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - maybe I'm missing something but didn't the American Civil War run between 1861 and 1865? The subject is supposed to have been born in 1876 - a decade after that war ended. But I can find archive biographies for other people that list their post-Civil-War business dealings with the subject (like this one) which suggests Safiel's Civil War comment is accurate. The provenance of this item suggests he was born in 1838 and died in 1876, which would seem to be a better fit. However, those dates also suggest (if he was a Brigadier-General by the time the war ended) that he attained that rank at the age of 27. Not sure how notable that would be in the context of the Civil War but I think the whole thing needs clarification. Stalwart111 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Heh, clearly that birth date given in the article is wrong and probably is the death date. Just the fact that he is listed as the younger brother of another Civil War officer indicates that the date given in the article is erroneous. Safiel (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, absolutely. I might add the Boston MFA reference to the article just to verify the year of birth / year of death. It's certainly not "significant coverage" enough to justify keeping the article (in my opinion) and contributors to this discussion really shouldn't consider it coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG. But I think it's worth clarifying so that editors are at least commenting on an accurate article, even if the subject is not notable. Stalwart111 01:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think he passes the relevant guidelines. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He was apparently breveted for service at Roanoke Island and New Bern during the Civil War and was wounded at the latter battle. He is clearly not as notable as his brother but I think he squeaks by on his own merits. The article is obviously a very weak stub and needs some additional information. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per {{subst:Bearian}}. Mr T^(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I've written tons of articles on 19th century American folks, and I see no case for notability here. We are not ancestry.com--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid (name)

Sayyid (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No source provided not a single one. How do you know these people are not using Sayyid or Syed as a honorific name? HiIamstandingbehindyou (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a page about a name (used both as a given name and a surname). It consists of an introductory paragraph about the etymology of the name (which, admittedly, could use a source, but that is not usually a reason to delete the whole article). The rest of the article consists of a list of people who use this name, which requires no sourcing. (I don't need a reference to say that John Smith's last name is Smith!). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 28. Snotbot  t • c »  22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sayyid ain't so. Keep. Looks like a perfectly reasonable given name/surname page/list to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sayyid (name) is a perfectly acceptable anthroponymy article. 95% of the people listed on the article use only the name as a given name or surname, not as an honorific title, the 5% have been erroneously added later. One just needs to click on all the links to see. There are so many Arabian titles used as names, there's no room to list them all here. Here are two examples; Ihsan (name) and Amir (name). John Cengiz talk 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While it certainly would help to source the content in the lede, this article is no different than most articles in Category:Given names; it is a list of people with the given name, and the sources in the relevant articles provide that verification. - SudoGhost 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cards Against Humanity

Cards Against Humanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm concerned that this game may not meet the criteria for notability. Many of the references are only trivial, or on small websites - some do not exist, and some are links to Facebook posts or other primary sources. While the game might be good, I'm not sure if it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for further debate, The Cavalry (Message me) 21:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm inclined to say keep because a good part of its notablity in my mind is that it is an independently created and published game. The page does have sources. And I also see a "kickstarter" mention in there too. I'm usually on the delete side, but this page (and game) does strike me as notable. Outback the koala (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AV Club, Chicago Tribune are both big enough sources and they are in-depth reviews; and that's just going by what's in the article. I see a few more out there [1], [2] , so I'm confident it's notable. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep considerable coverage by RS. -Drdisque (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep currently one of the most popular toys (e.g. #2 card game on Amazon [3] with 600+ reviews). -Anon 30 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk)
• Keep 1032 ratings and 308 comments on boardgamegeek is enough for me. Also, it was notable last time, why are we doing it again? Has it become more obscure? Khendon (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points: popularity (the measurements you are using at BGGeek) is not part of the consideration we use for notability. And as for what was the case before, notability as a condition for a stand-alone article is a presumption and can change over time. Not that I'm saying this is non-notable (see my keep above), but that the arguments here are rather weak ones and should be avoided at AFD. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popularity is an indicator of widespread knowledge of an object, product or concept. In this case I beleive it is an indicator and valid. Outback the koala (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Given the depth of the sources in the article and the ones Masem provided, I'd say this certainly has enough notability as defined by the WP:GNG. I wouldn't say that all the sources in the article give notability, but there are plenty of reliable third-party sources that do. - SudoGhost 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This game is basically an offensive version of Apples to Apples, which has a page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notoriety is a worthy reason. clarka 3 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.150.41 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Close as 'Snow Keep' per everyone else on this page. There's no way there's going to be consensus for closure. LK (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mount_&_Blade#Sequels_and_spin-offs. MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Article about an "upcoming medieval combat game" that while announced, "It is unknown when it will be released or what setting it may be in". Same reason as original PROD: WP:CRYSTAL. §FreeRangeFrog 20:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TaleWorlds - It seems there hasn't been much information since the announcement and it's probably going through the in-production stages so a redirect may be best. Google News found a reprint of the announcement here and other reprints here. The current source and one of those reprints can be used at the TaleWorlds page and the article can restarted when more details are known. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge cited entries to Mount_&_Blade#Sequels_and_spin-offs as one of the original game's spinoffs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge and Redirect to Mount_&_Blade#Sequels_and_spin-offs. this is the only article I could find that offers more than a simple product announcement. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per the above, although I don't think that will be necessary for much longer. The teaser received a lot of coverage, even though there isn't much to cover yet, so I'm sure the next, more substantial piece of news will receive more such coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mount & Blade#Sequels and spin-offs per BALL. Mephistophelian (contact) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete - AGAIN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P Jainulabdeen

P Jainulabdeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am taking this straight to AfD because it's a long essay but I don't feel I'm qualified to make an informed call as to whether or not this person meets WP:GNG at least. It seems to me that he does not, but it's tricky because of lack of english sources. Also, we would benefit from editors who are familiar if not with the person, with the topic at least. §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had not noticed this bio was AfDed a month ago, so it's currently marked as WP:CSD#G4. If it is deleted then I'll do a non-admin close here; otherwise the discussion can happen normally. §FreeRangeFrog 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the current version is significantly larger than the version that was deleted, and has new (rubbish) references. I've declined the speedy but will watch this AfD and close it when it's done. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no new evidence of significance since last AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whoever wrote the article seemed to believe that adding sources by the subject was a good thing, but just the opposite, sources by P Jainulabdeen actually make the article worse. See WP:PRIMARY. I did find two reliable secondary sources about the subject[4][5] but it's not in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. These sources strongly suggest notability exists, but even if we were to take WP:TNT to the article, there's nothing we can say about the subject other than he is founder of The Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ). If other reliable secondary sources can be found that discuss the subject in-depth, I would consider changing my vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This version is no improvement on deleted version. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Said Bajaber

Ahmed Said Bajaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed by IP, no evidence that this virtually unsourced BLP of a youth footballer has met any of our notability requirements. Only 2 refs in the article, 1 doesn't mention him and the other is a YouTube video. Valenciano (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable/unsourced list (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: Z

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list of in-universe characters. Criteria for the list appears to be being mentioned on a Magic: The Gathering card. Criteria for lists like this is supposed to be being mentioned in something not affiliated with MTG. pbp 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider leaving your comment at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering characters: G. --Izno (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've left a comment at "G". Nothing to WP:verifynotability of this group of characters in accordance with WP:NLIST. (Leave replies/rebuttals at "G".) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per comment at "G". --Claritas § 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable/unsourced list (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: X

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list of in-universe characters. Criteria for the list appears to be being mentioned on a Magic: The Gathering card. Criteria for lists like this is supposed to be being mentioned in something not affiliated with MTG. pbp 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CityOfSilver 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no suitable secondary sources exist for this topic. --Claritas § 23:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider leaving your comment at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering characters: G. Since it looks like there are already users here looking to delete, I'll formally !vote here for a merge/userfy to see what if anything can be saved. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've left a comment at "G". Nothing to WP:verifynotability of this group of characters in accordance with WP:NLIST. (Leave replies/rebuttals at "G".) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable/unsourced list (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: H

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list of in-universe characters. Criteria for the list appears to be being mentioned on a Magic: The Gathering card. Criteria for lists like this is supposed to be being mentioned in something not affiliated with MTG. pbp 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider leaving your comment at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering characters: G. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've left a comment at "G". Nothing to WP:verifynotability of this group of characters in accordance with WP:NLIST. (Leave replies/rebuttals at "G".) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-notable/unsourced list (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: G

List of Magic: The Gathering characters: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced list of in-universe characters. Criteria for the list appears to be being mentioned on a Magic: The Gathering card. Criteria for lists like this is supposed to be being mentioned in something not affiliated with MTG. pbp 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there's one of these for each letter of the alphabet, this really needs to be a multi-AFD for all 26 such articles, because that's really the only way to evaluate all these. Assuming that it would be a multi AFD, my first inclining would be a mass delete of them all; but I am aware that there are some common characters through the game's mythos and into the related media, that a single page of notable MTG characters would be appropriate. Thus I would support a merge of just the recurring ones to a single list, which would necessitate the deletion of these alphabet ones, or perhaps doing a massive history merge into a single list before stripping that down to the base characters as to keep whatever contributins were made on the alpha pages --MASEM (t) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, the really important characters have separate articles. I haven't really checked out how referenced they are pbp 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would tend toward merge, then userfy, then keep (as opposed to a nuke the full articles completely). I'd be willing to nuke all the trivial mentions from each of the articles to see where to start with the merging. That said, I would tend to agree that this does need a mass nomination (taking into account the message left on Masem's page). --Izno (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Template:MTG navbox seems to pick out the major characters of the story (the Planeswalkers plus a handful of others). Still, I would rather work from the direction of cutting out all the obviously minor characters and proceed from there. PPS: The individual expansions also look like AfD fodder. Could probably merge each of those into "block" articles. --Izno (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these aren't characters so much as they're tiny plot elements from the game and fiction. It verges on a WP:GAMEGUIDE which is something that Wikipedia is not. Either way, there's nothing to establish this group of characters as notable according to WP:NLIST, let alone notable to have a list for literally every character sorted into 26 lengthy lists. That being said, if a merge emerges as a compromise, I'd support it, since this series has been around long enough that I'm sure at least some of the characters have something to be said about them in a good aggregate list. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not characters in any meaningful sense; WP:NOTTRIVIA applies here.--Claritas § 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kurtz

Chris Kurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional bio for "social media marketing expert" among others. Attempts to establish notability by association but based on what I'm seeing in Google this person simply does not meet WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: As blatantly promotional. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander C.Morley

Alexander C.Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable self-published writer. References cited include:

1. His own self-written profile in his alma mater's alumni directory
2. A profile written about him in his alma mater's alumni magazine
3. His listed works at Amazon.com.

No reviews of any of his works to be found in any reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the aforementioned reasons. Greengreengreenred 23:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is the entire article not properly sourced, but it's also pretty blatantly non-neutrally written. "Most of his peers consider him a “young” Murakami, sharing similar ideas, and focusing on literary fiction with metaphysical elements." Considering that none of the sources in the article make that claim, this is pretty much original research. It's not so overly promotional that I think it could be speedied for promotional issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a snow close. He's clearly not notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Lack of reviews in reliable sources. Self-published. No other indication of importance. I wondered if it was a hoax because some of his book titles are hilarious, but I guess you can call a self-published work anything you like. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I understand the arguments for deletion, but I find the arguments to keep slightly more policy-based at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Elizabeth Butt

Mary Elizabeth Butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

any notability would be inherited, so unless I'm missing something, I would think she fails WP:N as the only mentions of her on the web (based on my google search) were already cited and pertained primarily to her death; I just don't think she's notable. Go Phightins! 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She has a page devoted her at the Texas State Historical Association which is cited in the wiki entry. Clearly they think she is somewhat important to Texas history. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fbuayPatapsco913 (talk)

Be that as it may, I think that multiple, non-trivial sources would be needed to establish notability. Go Phightins! 03:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that an entry with the Texas State Historical Society or a book featuring her as one of the founders of Texas philanthropy are trivial sources. Her activities were not inheritances: her husband made the money, she drove the philanthropy. If we had access to news articles from the 40s and 50s, she would surely be mentioned (since she was the driving the driving force behind many of the charitable oraganizations in the region); as we don't, we have to rely on post-mortem summaries of her contributions. Anyhow this lady was a pioneer so I really do not see any reason at all to delete this entry.Patapsco913 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject is covered in multiple reliable third-party sources, crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for interjecting, but where is it asserted that notability is a competition. Go Phightins! 20:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Go Phightins. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Redirect to H-E-B as was done with her husband. Howard Edward Butt, who has just as much coverage as she does from the Texas State Historical Society. Her awards are trivial, her philanthropy is excellent but not unusual for a woman of her means, and she was not a "pioneer" in any sense. (1903-1993 was not the "pioneer" period in Texas.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, relevant for the history of Texas, as evidenced also by the awards and the 1995 Senate Resolution of the Senate of Texas. (Actually I added the Senate Resolution to the article now, as it had not yet been taken up in the article so far.) --Chris Howard (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 18:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dravecky and Chris Howard. The Texas Senate Resolution honoring Mary Butt firmly establishes her notability. Legislative resolutions are the ultimate secondary source. Guðsþegn (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A state senate resolution is certainly significant, and the article could certainly use better sources, but I'd say there's enough there to be notable per WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 16:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National express india

National express india (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indications that this publication actually exists. No mentions to be found online. The website provided by the initial contributor (now removed) is a dead link. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No proof of existence makes it pretty hard to prove notability. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TexasAndroid. Guðsþegn (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Adam Cadre. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyttle Lytton Contest

Lyttle Lytton Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While created from the obviously notable Bulwer–Lytton Fiction Contest, this contest does not seem to have substantial coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. The creator's page also seems to indicate fairly weak notability, and certainly not notability that would be inherently inherited by his creations. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Adam Cadre -- agree with nom there is insufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. However there is a place for the content on Wikipedia since we have an established article for the founder of the prize, who is central to the prize. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Adam Cadre - A Google News search for "Lyttle Lytton Contest" produced results here (contains little information about the contest) and minor mentions here and here. The other relevant results are to the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. Another search provided useless blogs here, here and here. There are others but it would probably be a waste to list them all. However, before closing the search, I found this blog which supports the 2001 establishment. Honestly, this appears to be a rather humorous and meaningless (to an encyclopedia that is) contest so it probably hasn't received any serious and significant attention. If other voters support the merge, I'm willing to perform it. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the nominator, I'm certainly willing to strike my vote and agree with a proposed merge if a consensus emerges for it, although I'd prefer to wait for another opinion or two.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY, consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mellor

Jason Mellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed by Ssjjsd (talk · contribs), who left this rationale on the TP: "Mellor has played in the FA Cup five times, is the FA Cup not considered as professional?". This is not the case; the FA Cup is not a professional competition as many semi-professional teams participate. More importantly, Mellor has never played in the competition for a team competing in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not appeared in a fully pro league and fails WP:GNG as it has not been demonstrated that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - most importantly he fails WP:GNG, but he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he not played in a fully-professional league or in an associated Cup competition. GiantSnowman 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The first voter mentions the subject fails GNG and NFOOTBALL and of course that is the overriding rationale for everyone. Subject fails WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cloudz679 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL applies in part due to possibly "emerging" status. Primary author has vested interest, WP:OR. Full searches cannot provide any such programs of study. This may *someday* be a viable topic, but without multiple valid 3rd party reliable sources as per the discussion, this is probably years off. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Muslim Studies

Ex-Muslim Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No such field of study at any academic institution I could find; online references are to this very article. Possibly a hoax. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain: This is an emerging and new field, as the entry points out. I am cited in this article and I feel comfortable identifying myself as a very real scholar, teaching at a real college, engaging and publishing about ex-Muslim studies. Fields of study like gay studies, sub-altern studies, an post-colonial studies were unheard of recently, now they are well established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphilosopherking (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What classes? What college? Where? Who defined the scope of the field and when? What papers have been published and peer-reviewed? What academic journals did they appear in? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is "the study" of Ex-Muslim Studies itself, not a discussion of the subject of Ex-Muslim Studies: a sure sign of original synthesis, though not quite original research. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 'original synthesis'--I disagree. Original synthesis entails that one is advancing a position according to the Wikipedia page you referenced. The page is not advancing any position at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphilosopherking (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear—I gave one reason to delete, not two. That is: an article describing "Ex-Muslim Studies" should be an article describing the subject, similar to the example you gave, gay studies, where the article is about the subject of gay studies. The article you wrote is full of apparently well-written and well-sourced material which is what "Ex-Muslim studies" presumably analyzes and studies, but does not have any sources about the subject considered as a whole. Thus, the references do not support the existence of the general subject, only if taken as an original synthesis. For this I voted delete—but all the material in the article could conceivably be placed in the respective pre-existing articles. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. Non-notable topic, and the creator more or less admits above that he's trying to use Wikipedia to create the topic. (WP:NOR) However, the sources may be useful in other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Weak Keep "Ex-Muslim studies" may exist, but only as a fringe study. The article has lots of examples, with sources for these examples, but no general sources for the "studies" themselves. Any universities say? There's a lot of content here I'd hate to see deleted, but I wouldn't know where to merge it to. If sources are provided that shows this in fact exists as a formal field of study Anywhere - we should keep and improve the page. Otherwise... another option. Outback the koala (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did find this in a quick search [6] might be real. But if so, clearly very sparce and rarely known field. Outback the koala (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of coverage of this as a field (as opposed to the synthesis and OR there now) means this article fails WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Userfy This article needs a re-focusing. If it's about "Ex-Muslim Studies" as an academic discipline, it needs to be strictly about that (where it is taught, leaders in the field of study, etc.). Right now it's an overview of apostasy and Islam, with original synthesis problems. The term "Ex-Muslim" itself has a shade of POV, and only shows up in certain literatures. The Interior (Talk) 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification: Please allow me to make a number of comments for the sake of clarity so an informed decision can be made regarding what to do with this entry. I have edited the opening sentence to clarify that ex-Muslim studies is a subset or sub-discipline of religious conversion studies, and that is indeed a well-established and well-known field of study reaching back to William James, at least, in the social sciences. There are a number of reasons why you will not find a specific 'department of ex-Muslim studies' at your local university: 1) it is a new field of study (substantial numbers of converts date back to the 60's only), 2) financially, universities and colleges are closing and merging programs today, and only rarely opening new ones, and 3) it is politically sensitive, and secular institutions are very sensitive about offending Muslims, and this is a topic that, no matter how objectively you approach it, tends to offend Muslims. 4) It is, after all interdisciplinary, and the people engaged in this research are teaching history, anthropology, sociology of religion, theology, missiology, and so on. I don't know if this makes a difference, but I know of several people engaged in doctoral studies right now studying ex-Muslim groups, but it will still be a year or two until their material is published. Again, it is an emerging field. That having been said, there are a number of figures and studies that are very influential to people studying ex-Muslims, and a list of those would not be hard to compose. What is needed? A published journal article introducing the discipline? I can ask around and see if anyone has something like that, or if anyone is working on one. As to institutions where ex-Muslim studies are being carried out, I can point to the institutions where the doctoral research is being carried out by individual scholars, both in the UK and the USA. Would that be helpful? All of this to say, if the page needs to go, let it be. Or perhaps parts of it can helpfully be merged into other pages, like on religious conversion or what have you. But the field is broader than just religious conversion. It is just that to date that is the question (why people leave Islam) that has been most studied, and only right now is ongoing research being carried out regarding the consequences of that apostasy and the activities of those people. Excuse the long post, but there were quite a few points to respond to. Xphilosopherking (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for making the effort to respond to others' concerns. I'm afraid, however, that the comment is bolstering the arguments against this article's existence, as you seem fundamentally to be saying "it's a new thing and we need to be the ones to document its existence." But that is not how Wikipedia notability works. The topic itself must be documented by reliable sources - so it wouldn't be enough to produce a couple of dissertations on conversion out of Islam, even if the dissertations identified "ex-Muslim studies" as a field, because it is necessary to find sources that talk about the field of ex-Muslim studies (eg. how did it originate, who are some prominent scholars working in it, some universities that are leading the field). Does this make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Roscelese: so what is need here is an article or website that proves that this is a field of study? Is that correct? I'm sure I can find that if it is what Wikipedia requires. I suppose a question is, if this is deleted, then at what point could such an entry be written? Thank you for your helpful remarks. Xphilosopherking (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Userfy: As it is written, this article is a good essay, and does document some useful social science insights. Not encyclopedic, however. I agree that some of this could be integrated into other articles or just rewritten in an entirely different tone with references if factual. Fylbecatulous talk 13:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Significant original research but not an established independent topic. Most of the material is the editor's own writings. Some is unreferenced. Some references are not noteworthy. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Recent changes (such as those in Clarification below) encourages me to tilt towards keep. The weak persists because of the unknown quality of the literature. I'd like to understand the nature of the publications better but lean towards keep at this point.Jason from nyc (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: I have noted that some people have suggested that this page was composed to promote my own scholarship, rather than to document a genuine, existing field of study. I have deleted most references to my own work, and welcome anyone to read the other references and delete them as well if they are not justified. Also, I have shared the website with some people involved in the study of ex-Muslims, and perhaps they will chime in in the coming weeks. Is there a deadline for this discussion? I am new to this sort of discussion, my apologies. Xphilosopherking (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no real deadlines for this on the books; as long as long as the discussion is still ongoing, it usually won't be closed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is NOT the first AFD for this topic, merely under other names. It's a clear POV fork, and a clear attempt at re-creation of past deleted articles. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian genocide

Algerian genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a POV fork of Algerian war, designed to attach the label "genocide" to the French actions during that war (1954-62), and in the Sétif massacre of 1945.

The article has a complex history including previous deletions, but this version is sufficiently different not to be a G4 speedy deletion candidate, and should be considered on its merits (but see this AfD for the deletion in 2006 of an earlier article on the same lines).

Genocide is a powerful and emotive word, and like other such words is often misused for rhetorical purposes, but we should be correspondingly careful about using it. Authoritative definitions such as that used by the UN's Genocide Convention include an element of intent to destroy a people or a group.

There are two questions to ask of the article: does it present reliably sourced evidence of genocide? if not, does it present evidence that the accusation is seriously made, and seriously considered by those with no axe to grind?

Evidence of genocide: the article's assertions come under two headings: use of torture and large casualty numbers. There are four paragraphs about torture; it is not to be excused, but it is not the same as genocide, and evidence of torture is not evidence of genocide.

The casualty numbers quoted are exaggerated. The lead paragraph gives an upper figure of 1,500,000, cited to Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace, the main English-language history of the war. That book nowhere gives such a number: its conclusion (p.538) is that the figures "do not justify the total of one million."

The article later asserts confidently that "Approximately 1.5 million Algerian Muslim Arabs were tortured and massacred." The source this time is onwar.com which in turn quotes unnamed "Algerian sources" for the figure; but it also quotes estimates of 300,000 from the FLN and 350,000 from the French, and agrees with Horne that if the actual figure is substantially higher than those, "it does not reach the 1 million adopted by the Algerian government."

The article gives the impression that these numbers are all Algerians killed by the French, but that is far from the case. This was a savage and confused conflict, and total casualties include Frenchmen, Algerians serving with the French forces, civilians killed by both sides, internecine fighting on the Algerian side, and massacres in the immediate post-war period of the "Harkis", Algerians who had served with the French or were identified with them.

No evidence is presented of any French intent to destroy the Algerian population as a group.

Evidence of the accusation: the specific Algerian accusation cited is by President Bouteflika, who is quoted as saying "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions." This accusation is of "cultural genocide", a much vaguer concept covering the whole colonial period, and one which could be made by most colonised peoples.

Other accusations cited are from Turkish sources, and are related to disputes about the Armenian genocide of 1915. Although this is generally accepted as genocide, the Turkish government does not agree, and the accusation cited from the Turkish Prime Minister Mr Erdogan was in retaliation for a French law (since blocked as unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Council) which would have made it a crime to deny that the Armenian killings were genocide. The Turkish accusation was not welcomed by the Algerians, whose Prime Minister asked the Turks to "stop trading in the colonisation of Algeria... No one has the right to make use of the blood of Algerians."

TL;DR conclusion: in regard to the events of 1945 and 1954-62, this article produces no evidence of genocide, nor of any serious accusation of genocide except those made for political motives by the Turks. The Algerian war was a savage one with atrocities on both sides: we have a reasonably balanced article on it, and this one is a biased POV fork introduced for political motives. It should be deleted, not merged or redirected, which would perpetuate the "genocide" label. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and remove the POV I have an opinion over whether this horrible series of events can be properly called "genocide", but that's irrelevant. Most of the AfD nomination above is devoted to arguing the point, and that too is not relevant. The question is whether there were notable accusations of genocide. I think even the nominator admits that the Turkish government did call it genocide, and that was widely reported. That the accusations were made as ammunition in context of another dispute is certainly proper material for the article, but not a reason for deletion. The Algerian accusations also are relevant, though they need to be handled carefully with respect to the meaning, and I agree with the comments of the nom. that the article is not sufficiently clear. The entire section proving the French used torture widely, and killed about a half million civilians should be removed--a single sentence of background is sufficient. The emphasis is prejudicial POV, prejudicial enough that I can fully understand the justification for the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't commonly reckoned to be genocide or attempted genocide, and therefore it fails Wikipedia policy on the naming of articles: atrocities were certainly committed by both sides in Algeria, and they are already discussed in other articles. Furthermore, most of the article isn't about literal genocide (actual or alleged), and it heavily overlaps with Torture during the Algerian War and other articles. Renaming is not a solution because if you renamed it to something more neutral, then it would be even more clearly a duplication of other articles. If you want to name it Turkish allegations of genocide in Algeria you would still have to prove that's a notable topic rather than just a single news event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - already been deleted once. Nothing has changed since then. Leng T'che (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Article is relevant just because it has a real basement. Historical period since 1945 till 1962 in Algeria was one of the darkest and most terrible periods of the world history in XX century. The darkest — because France is blocking the disclosure of the truth of that period. Terrible — because of ethnic cleansing carried out by France in Algeria. Why article named Muslim terrorism is allowed, but "Algerian genocide" is not? Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia? Wertuose (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious POV fork Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — sure some POV but that can be fixed with edits by users so I think this article can be saved.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

above !vote fails to address which notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term Genocide can be accepted under Lemkin definition.User:Lucifero4
• Comment/probably delete It's not up to us to come to some kind of independent judgment as to whether all this can or cannot, or should or should not, be described as genocide based on our own analysis and reasoning or even on the word sometimes cropping up in conjunction with these events in half-decent sources in some contexts. The bar is at once higher and easier to make a call on. The only issues when it comes to whether WP should have a page under this title are: a) whether there is some specific and coherent thing or topic commonly referred to as the "Algerian genocide" in reliable and authoritative sources; and b) whether it is actually about anything that we do not already have covered under another, more commonly seen name (or other titles plural). I'm finding it hard to avoid concluding that it fails on both counts and is probably not much more than a POV fork. N-HH talk/edits 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relister's comment: I'm relisting this because the discussion above is unsuitable for assessing a consensus for the reasons noted by N-HH. The question is whether we should have an article about this topic according to our inclusion guidelines (WP:N, WP:POVFORK); and not issues of content such as whether there was a genocide or what Wikipedia should say about the historic events at issue. Accordingly, a closer would have to discount most of the above contributions. Could we have some more opinions by experienced editors, please?  Sandstein  16:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant POV fork. Sure, there were grave and serious atrocities. But that doesn't prove that the government in Paris really wanted to annihilate the Algerian people. Also, this is not the commonly accepted term for the conflict. Note that even the Saddam's onslaught against the Kurds is not explicitly called one in the lede, merely referenced and alluded to as "genocidal". dci | TALK 04:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Calling the efforts made to resist Algerian independence "genocide" is a misuse of the term. Genocide means killing a whole race (or attempting to). There may have been massacres (I do not know), but I would be very doubtful if it was on a scale to consitiute genocide. I will add that this appears to be a POV of the Turkish government, which is trying to pretend that two wrongs make a right ot to escape French arguments about the genocide of the Ottoman regime by suggesting that the French were as guilty in Algeria. The Ottoman regime undoubtedly was guilty of genocide against Armenian and other Christian minorities, whose rebellion they feared during WWI. This is a case where history as taught in school is wilfully blind. I suspect that my own country also tends to be blind as to its military defeats. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: N-HH has pinpointed the important issues, but I believe the article fails both.

(a) Is some specific and coherent thing or topic commonly referred to as the "Algerian genocide" in reliable and authoritative sources? Searching, e.g with the links at the head of this AfD, finds almost exclusively Turkish sources, or reports of Turkish sources, at dates clustering around 2006 and late 2011, the two occasions when the French parliament debated bills to criminalise denial of the Armenian genocide. Those were also the dates at which versions of this article were introduced here. The subject of the accusations, as of this article, is French actions during the war of independence.

(b) Is it actually about anything that we do not already have covered under another, more commonly seen name? No, there is a full article at Algerian war, and more specific ones at Sétif and Guelma massacre, Battle of Philippeville, Torture during the Algerian War etc, plus coverage of the background at French Algeria, Nationalism and resistance in Algeria, Foreign relations of France#Algeria.

Altering the title to "Accusations" has been tried before: after the 2006 article was deleted at AfD it was re-created as Accusations of French genocide against Algerians which was deleted, DRV'd, sent to AfD and redirected to Foreign relations of France#Algeria. JohnCD (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Huerta (police officer)

David Huerta (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very sad but not notable and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies ...William 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - just being a tragic case does not justify a Wiki article. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ODMP lists hundreds and hundreds of fallen officers but not all of them can be included especially because some are mysterious and unsolved deaths or very short and insignificant for an encyclopedia. Google News found nothing relevant and Google Books found two results. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sad, but not for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Though, in a sense, this AfD may become a sort of memorial for the unfortunate Mr. Huerta. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Current consensus is to keep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allylcyclopentane

Allylcyclopentane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Topic is not notable. Nothing malicious here, just that some students were assigned to write about this compound but the associated instructor has not provided any input (perhaps an inexperienced teaching assistant). Their only references are to chemical catalogues.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Chemical compounds, no matter how obscure, are generally kept because there is almost always a reliable source for them, even if it is hard to find. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Just as Eastmain says, chemical compounds are generally notable because there are reliable sources for them. In this case, that's true: the article cites include chemistry websites and a textbook discussing this specific compound. I don't think there's really any good policy-based reason to delete. --Lord Roem (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a chemical compound, so keep per reasons stated by Eastmain and Lord Roem. The article is well-sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumspect (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I considered closing the debate as keep but I'll comment for now, Google Books found several relevant results. As mentioned, chemicals and other science-related topics are usually always covered by science journals and the like. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment questioning keep, while I do not completely agree with the policy or the analysis, I am cool on this. Arguments to change the policy or consensus: (1) Many tens of millions of compositions of matter are recognized (see Chemical Abstracts Service#databases), so there is a dilution factor - readers stumble on these ultra-obscure chemicals and conclude they are notable and then fabricate/build stories based on the elaborate jargon and fancy links (none to WP:SECONDARY you will notice). My guess is that some of the editors above are not practicing chemists and were swayed by the technojargon. (2) A related component, illustrated in the present article, is that these ultra-obscure articles are neglected by serious editors and they get fluffed up or filled with bad information, exacerbating the problem of a naive reader drawing the wrong conclusions. (3) The message factor - some editors will lower their standards for notability citing this kind of precedent. Chemical compounds are dumb, but the hot issues within Wikipedia involve people-related issues, where the criteria for notability are elevated. Uneven standards are the basis for potential discord. Thanks to all for taking the time to comment and advise. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The idea that all chemical compounds are notable is silly. This notion directly contradicts Wikipedia policy, including WikiProject Chemistry's own guidelines: "Chemistry topics, including chemical compounds, chemical reactions, chemist biographies, etc., should meet the general notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia". All the references included in the article do nothing whatsoever to suggest that this compound is notable. Being mentioned in a chemical database is the equivalent of a person being listed in a phone book - we would never consider that evidence of notability for a biography. ChemNerd (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm ambivalent on whether it should be kept or deleted. So long as it is factual, rather than fluffed up with irrelevant material (see [7]), I feel there's little harm in keeping it. Perhaps it will remain a stub forever simply because it's not used much in real life. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to agree.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I disagree with some who have commented above that this article is well-sourced. As the article stood a few days ago, it referenced a webpage with predicted albumin interactions (this sort of data is often generated mindlessly and means little without context), and three suppliers/chemical portals that had scant information beyond appearance, formula, and molecular weight. For an article on a chemical to be well-sourced, it should reference textbooks and chemical encyclopedias for industrial production methods and major uses, and preferably checked syntheses (Org. and Inorg. Synth.), or perhaps peer-reviewed articles for its preparation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete chemical compounds are generally notable because there are reliable sources for them. Since when? There are gazillions of compounds known, thoroughly characterised, and reported in reliable journals. In no way does that mean we should have an article on them all. As this article illustrates, there isn't anything interesting to say about many of them beyond a collection of physical properties and database identifiers. As far as I'm aware, WP is not yet a chemical database. Chris (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG - PubChem, ChemSpider, Chemical Book --Nouniquenames 04:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PubChem, ChemSpider, SciFinder, Reaxys, etc. are not sufficient to establish the notability of any compound. These databases attempt to exhaustively catalog every single compound that has been made or has been mentioned in journals and patents. Chemical Book is a trading portal, and that's not a reliable source either. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As far as I can tell, no valid argument for keeping this article has been advanced. Rifleman and Smokefoot are correct that there are plenty of compounds that will not satisfy WP:GNG, though they will be listed in databases and their syntheses appear in the literature. Without something that discusses using the compound, it is not notable. The only reason that this is not a !delete vote is that the article mentions the compounds use in synthesis of a pharmaceutical. If this can be substantiated with reliable sources then there would be a reason to keep the article and decent references will have been added. However, if no such substantiation is done before this AfD closes, and no other significant improvement is made to the article from its present state, then I suggest it be closed as delete. EdChem (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Museum of Patriotism

National Museum of Patriotism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems more like a three-year art exhibition in a small gallery than a museum. It was an idea which did not seem to take off or get much media coverage except to say that it opened and closed. Since it is now closed there will be no more coverage of this museum. I cannot find existing material which gives coverage of why this museum was any more notable than any other short-term exhibition of the type that might temporarily be at any museum. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is wrong to say it was a three-year art exhibition in a small gallery. It was open for at least 6 years at 2 different sites successively (I found some refs preceding 2004 but nothing definite), and at its peak occupied 10,000 sq ft in the tourist heart of downtown Atlanta, and entertained luminaries such as Patti LaBelle at a star-studded patriotism awards ceremony. Then it ran out of money, but notability isn't temporary. Most coverage is from Atlanta-area press (although Atlanta is not an insignificant place), but there's coverage in national media and in a scholarly work on images of patriotism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Colapeninsula says, this institution received significant coverage in national media over a period of multiple years. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NOTTEMP. If it was notable then (I would suggest it was), then it is notable now. Stalwart111 00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to felete as a non-notable list (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships

List of minor Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fancruft. The members of this list by definition are of little importance to the storyline of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED - there's List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft for the significant ones. The article is entirely in-universe, and there are no secondary sources which discuss its topic. Claritas § 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I transwikied it to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_minor_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_warships with its full history. Dream Focus 22:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also put up for AfD List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft, do we really need unreferenced Fancruft WP:NOTPLOT lists here on wikipedia? Both of the ones mentioned go against policy as it is and in addition fail Notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:NLIST, because there's nothing to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY of this group of minor warships. Further, this can't be expanded to be more than a description of the war ships as plot elements, and wikipedia is WP:NOTPLOT. I wouldn't see nominating the other list mentioned by Knowledgekid87 as controversial, and I'd support prodding it or taking it to AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based argument towards keep. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Co-Bro

Team Co-Bro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable tag team. While the individual wrestlers may be notable, none of the sources establish notability for this tag team. – Richard BB 11:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable tag team that hasn't even held at tag team championship nor have they even been a #1 contender for the tag team championship.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 12:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What does that have to do with Wikipedia notability guidelines?GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I view a tag team should have at least ether been a contender for the tag title or have held it there are other things that I look for but this team hasnt even met that in my book. But that dosent matter as the team fails WP:GNG anyway.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completly non notable team. Fails WP:GNG. STATic message me! 00:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this article!!!! :( They are a very notable tag team and deserve to stay. Delete The Shields wiki page, they are lower than this team and they are not getting deleted!!!!!!!!! please re-consider JobbersAreCool (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

How, exactly, are they notable? – Richard BB 15:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont Delete Perfectly notable team. They were in the Tag Team Tournament, and if The Shield, International Airstrike, Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara get to stay, then so should this page. JobbersAreCool (user talk:JobbersAreCool) 6:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• • As above, can you explain how they are notable? Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there are other articles alive (for now), that doesn't mean this one should stay. (Also, I have struck out both your and my earlier comments, so that it is not mistaken for two votes rather than one.) – Richard BB 07:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although it's once again leaning towards promotional, the product itself appears notable (not just due to overadvertising). Articles does need to be balanced and non-promo (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proactiv Solution

Proactiv Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was cleaned up significantly during the last AfD, in 2006 [8]. However, the subject still seems to be very borderline with respect to notability; most of the content in the current revision of the article could be merged with Benzoyl peroxide#Acne treatment. The 2002 People article appears to provide some coverage of the product (though it focuses on the product's creator more than the actual product), but I am not seeing much else that is independent of the subject. Guthy-Renker has been suggested as a merge target, but others have noted that there appears to be a consensus there against expanding the descriptions of the company's product lines. VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my opinion the Bieber connection with the named product in the popular press, combined with other existing coverage cited in the footnotes, is sufficient for a GNG pass as multiple, independently published instances of substantial coverage. While the article is not perfect, the topic strikes me as encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If notability were inherited from celebrity endorsements, then I agree that this product would pass with flying colors. The GNG also requires coverage to be intellectually independent of the subject, though. What sources have you found that appear to meet the GNG? VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, this should redirect to Rodan + Fields Dermatologists. If that company piece doesn't exist yet, this is fine. Far and away the most likely search term. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very notable product. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and target for improvement. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentDelete Is there any evidence that Proactive Solution acts differently from any other benzoyl peroxide product? If the active ingredient really is benzoyl peroxide, then I think it would be reasonable to redirect there. If reliable sources support the contention that this is truly a distinct product, then Keep would be my suggestion. -- Scray (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, the only active ingredient is benzoyl peroxide, and the rest are listed as "inactive". Thus, changed from comment to delete. -- Scray (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That has no bearing on product notability, no? Biosthmors (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think a product needs to have hard news coverage to be notable. Shlaer (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment below to SummerPhD. What were your research methodologies? Biosthmors (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poor coverage. Sourcing that is there discusses the developers of the product (mentioning the product but not discussing it) and G-R's advertising and promotion of the product (which is about G-R, not the product). - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment leaning keep. FWIW, this article gets more than 100 views a day, which is more than some of our featured articles. For all the delete votes, how rigorous were your research methodologies to determine this product was not notable? Biosthmors (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument here is not that no one reads it. There are solidly notable articles that probably aren't read for weeks at a time. The argument is that this product is not notable. (It's also worth noting that the back-and-forth with the COI editor certainly generates page views that have nothing to do with the notability of the topic.) If you believe the sources in the article are sufficient, say so. If you feel there are more sources out there, go get them. I do not feel the sources that there are sufficient and have not been able to find sources that I feel make the cut. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what databases, search terms, etc. did you use to screen for sources? Biosthmors (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With coverage in the NY Time, NY Daily News and Boston Globe amongst others, there is sufficient sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Coverage - There's some concern that the coverage identified to date is insufficient. Here is some more to consider from large mainstream press.
  • "Why Should Kids Have All the Acne?" (New York Times)
  • "Acne Treatment Helps Some, Not All" (Newsday)
  • "Bieber joins celebs fighting acne" (Stuff.co.nz)
  • "Proactiv’s celebrity shell game" (Salon)
  • "Pretty valuable faces" (Maclean's)
• These certainly puts the amount of coverage into the realm of "multiple sources". -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very well known product (at least in the United States) that passes WP:GNG requirements. Any perceived problems with the article can be fixed through editing. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete per WP:NOTNEWS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Tolyatti bus attack

2007 Tolyatti bus attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-noteable; WP:NOT#NEWS. Lupo 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - an admin needs to talk to this user about his constant creation of low-quality news articles on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done that now. But I notice that we have other IMO stupid atrocities like List of road accidents 2010–2019, whose very existence probably prompted this editor to think that reporting any minor incident was fine. Lupo 10:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a bad article, that needs a rename at the very least. I may take that one to AfD at some point. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Qworty (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would we even think about deleting a page on a terrorist attack killing eight and injuring fifty people in the United States? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to List of road accidents 2010–2019, because, sadly, this is run of the mill in the Second World. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 India factory explosion

2012 India factory explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable event; WP:NOT#NEWS. Lupo 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - an admin needs to talk to this user about his constant creation of low-quality news articles on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Carrite. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Qworty (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More than 50 people being killed in an industrial accident makes an event historic. This is an extremely terrible one-line stub, but neither is it the sort of "Car crash kills 5" or "Policeman shoots burglar" mundane news that NOTNEWS is meant to deter. Historians of industrial safety (and students doing research on such matters) deal with just this sort of Really Big incident. This does need to be renamed if kept. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HERE IS COVERAGE in the Times of India about the 2012 Sivakasi fireworks factory explosion. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is your evidence of continuing coverage, the report in the same source of the arrest of six people in connection with the incident. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This September 2012 blast was a major event, as evidenced by THIS coverage by BBC India. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing coverage BY BBC INDIA notes that Sikivasi is regarded as the fireworks capital of India, with 22 others killed before the September 5 fire. The industry there is the subject of substantial coverage due in large part to the blast. This is indicative of lasting historical importance to the incident. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this event had international ramifications, as indicated by THIS COVERAGE on the website of the New York Times in the aftermath of the explosion. I am just scratching the surface here, this could be a really good article if one or two people spent a few hours on it. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that reasoning. I still think it fails our inclusion criteria for events. Mentioning this accident in an article about the fireworks industry in India would be certainly OK. But a stand-alone article doesn't make much sense. Where's the lasting effect, where the historical significance? If it has these, then it could be explained in context in Fireworks industry of India. I don't think an accident where more than 50 people were killed automatically made the event historic. News coverage alone doesn't make an event historic, either. Now, if that news reporting on the event, or grassroots lobbying spurred by the event, or some such, led to some lasting changes, then it might turn out to have been a historic event. Right now, it is tragic, certainly, but historic, no. But if you can improve the article, work out its historic-ness (besides just having been a major fire with many deaths), go for it. Lupo 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and I'll say what everyone else is thinking: had this happened in the US / UK / Australia we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that it has not been covered in as many news sources as would have been the case if this had happened in upstate New York doesn't make this event less notable, in my opinion. Yes, we require reliable sources to verify that it happened but we have those. The unfortunate reality is that in some countries, life is cheap. I'm from Australia where a few years ago, three people dying in a fireworks explosion made the news for a week. In Chile, 30 trapped miners had the world glued to their televisions for the better part of a month. The 2005 London bombings killed 52 people - it has a 70,000 character article here and various national memorials. A single explosion in India kills 54 people and there's so little coverage that we're seriously considering deleting the article (and I'm not in any way holding the nominator responsible for that). I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFF this AFD away... I'm just saying. Humans suck sometimes. Stalwart111 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "had this happened in the US / UK / Australia we wouldn't be having this discussion" -- I don't think it's a question of Anglo- or Euro- or whatever -centrism. It's a question what is encyclopedic. In my eyes this isn't. Incidentally, I also think that, just for example, Sierre coach crash (Switzerland) or World Wide Tours bus crash (NYC) are not encyclopedic. Both events had no lasting effect at all. Both articles have only one topical incoming link; both suffer from recentism (present tense in an article is a good indicator), both have seen substantial edits only for a short while after the event. Then the interest in the topic waned to zero: it was no longer in the news headlines, and thus people lost interest. (Which, BTW, is clearly not because the articles were so good that they didn't need improvement anymore. Sierre coach crash is utterly lacking and incomplete in its "Reactions" section: no mention of the shock this caused in both Switzerland and Belgium, no mention of the funerals, no mention that members of the Swiss government attended at the funerary services in Belgium,...) Both were clearly newsworthy events, but neither is encyclopedic. And stuffing the articles with more news items won't make them so, unless it turns out that the event caused something of greater significance beyond the immediate context of the event itself. So far, this hasn't happened for either event, and I don't see it happening for this fireworks factory explosion either. If it does, then it may be the time to reconsider writing an encyclopedia article about it. Lupo 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, yours is an entirely justified and reasonable position. You shouldn't in any way be held responsible for the wider failings of humankind. But how sad is it that the horrific deaths of 54 people prompt so little response that such an event could be considered not sufficiently encyclopaedic. I suppose my broader point was that in "Western" countries, such an event would have prompted inquests from coroners, police investigations, criminal/civil charges and possible legislative changes, thus ensuring WP:EFFECT is easily met. In this case, a handful of people were arrested (maybe, it's unclear) but media outlets can't even agree on how many people died - I've seen everything from 30 to 60. Anyway, I might try and do some work on the article itself. Please don't view my comments as a criticism of you - you've done your job as an editor and then provided comprehensive explanation to back it up. Stalwart111 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, so I had a crack at fixing the article - added some references, info, links, etc. I also de-merged most of the corresponding section at Sivakasi (the town) which was mostly based on initial reports anyway. Stalwart111 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Further, the article has now been substantially expanded with the sources provided by Carrite above and others. I'm pleased to be able to report that local authorities have ordered and inquiry and there have been arrests and both have been reported on. I feel confident that while we may not have seen the whole long-term effect of the incident, the coverage found substantiates that this has been treated as more than a one-day news story. That doesn't invalidate Lupo's comments above (in any way) but I have had may faith in humanity restored just a little bit. Stalwart111 00:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there was an article on Fireworks Industry in Sivakasi, then this event should have been noted using 2-5 sentences there. Not notable enough event for a separate page in Wikipedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has encyclopedic information, with reliable sources of a tragedy where several lives (mostly children) lost. Rayabhari (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move to a more specific name. This article might have problems but that are not suitable grounds for deletion. This is a notable accident. Mr T^(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a move has been suggested on the article's talk page but I suggested we wait until this AFD has been concluded. Stalwart111 23:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If this was an American incident, we'd never even get one delete vote. Its a notable tragedy. Coverage meets WP:GNG--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Anthony Perkins

Craig Anthony Perkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Vanity spam from a corporate name account. Perkins, aka Genshi, falls short of notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing that actually mentions him is either trivial or by him or not in a reliable source. I found nothing better. None of his musical projects are notable. None of his films are notable. Telly Award is not major ("Entries are self-nominated", "no set limit to the number of winners each year, but the total numbers in the thousands", "statue prizes are paid for by the winners using engraved information chosen by the recipient"). Awards at iPhone Film Festival are not major. Being published does not make him a notable photographer. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't see him passing any of the above guidelines, or WP:GNG - couldn't find any real sources on the guy via Google. Don't think it's quite a speedy delete for spam/pure-promo though. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The references are self-published, don't cite what's given, or mention his name and nothing else, which isn't significant enough to convey notability. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The references in the article are mostly unreliable sources. Of the lot, only Wired is one that I would consider a reliable source, but that article is not about Perkins, and only used photos of his broken heart robots as an illustration with not even a mention in the main body text. My own search turned up nothing useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genshi Media Group

Genshi Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This afd is for multiple articles, A record label and it's bands which are projects of the founder.

Cell:burn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jido-genshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A nice collection of spam from a corporate name account. No indication of why they are notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced only by primary sources from the subjects. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Couldn't find any reliable third party sources whatsoever, even using the alternative term "Genshi Toy", which is also used by them. Only their (unverified) assertion they are a record label saves me from !voting WP:CSD#A7. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A redirect or merge to the company's founder is not viable as his article is at AFD and is likely to end up in deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This was a difficult decision. I actually think that the arguments for "delete" somewhat outweigh the arguments for "keep", as many of the latter are not based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or are based on misunderstandings of them. Nevertheless, there are enough cogent, policy/guideline-based arguments on both sides that I do not think that any slight disparity could reasonably be described as a "consensus". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}} WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION TAKING SO LONG TO CLOSE? WWGB (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because administrators are reluctant to spend a lot of time working through very long discussions with no clear picture emerging, rather than spending a similar amount of time and effort achieving more in other areas. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just like some of the recent articles on individual words of phrases from speeches in a US political context, politics , this is a similar one from Australia. It seems every bit as unjustified; the place some of this information belongs is the article about Alan Jones. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:EVENT. still getting coverage this month [9]. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also as per WP:DIVERSE, additional overseas coverage in several sources CNN, guardian, NZherald. [10] International Business times. Uk telegraph [11], UK times [12], Xinhua news agency China [13], radio in Hong Kong [14]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the section in the Alan Jones article is enough. --Salix (talk): 08:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:EVENT. Definately notable. This issue surpasses the notability of Jones himself. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major news event in Australia, with political implications. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons stated above. I'd never hear about the guy if the incident hadn't happened. Lguipontes (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Just merge it into the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And merge into the person's bio. Like most other breakout "controversy" articles, this merits nothing more than a paragraph with a few supporting references. §FreeRangeFrog 22:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Everything that needs to be said about this is already in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason for deleting. see WP:BELONG. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that is not what the above person actually said in the slightest, WP:BELONG is a wholly irrelevant response. In the Wikipedia we routinely redirect/merge attempts to make articles out of criticism/controversy events, as having a standalone article tends to put undue weight on the criticism. Unless the event is of true national and critical notability and it does not make the parent article overly long, a paragraph or two in the parent is sufficient for matters such as this. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Particularly as his comments are covered in full in the main article, I fail to see why we should have an article on what I would call a minor controversy that had no major effects, other than politicians lining up to say how dreadful his comments were. I don't believe this meets all aspects of WP:EVENT, particularly WP:EFFECT (no particular wide-ranging effects) and WP:PERSISTENCE (very little further analysis). Same information is found at the main Alan Jones article, and article title is not a plausible redirect, so no need for a merge. Several "keep" comments seem to be simply WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the claim that the incident surpasses Jones in notability is laughable. IgnorantArmies – 01:32, Wednesday November 21, 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable at all outside Australasia, just as I bet you hardly would say that radio comentators in languages other than English change something in the lives of average Australians, if you ever heard about them, like jokes about Fox News being not understood in Latin America (you can try to insult Globo instead in Brazil, for example, but if you have Americans in the crowd, they will go WTH?). President Julia, the history of her family and opposition politicians and politicized public figures being nasty in commenting it or using it as a weapon against her are of value in other regions of the world, even if minimal. Lguipontes (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The controversy goes beyond Jones. The leader of the opposition's echoing of the phrase prompted the prime minister's "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man" speech. Doing justice to the controversy in Alan Jones (broadcaster) would be giving undue weight to elements not germane to Jones. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Anthonyhcole. While not a major political event, it deserves more than a para in a BLP. The ripples from Jones' private remarks spread far further than intended. --Pete (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, it's an important element of a bigger picture. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the general superficiality of Australian political debate and somewhat trivialised discourse and the way it is reflected back from broadcasters is clearly notable in a long term understanding of Australian political history - perhaps not a global phenomenon, it si nevertheless a notable sign post of the degradation of public discourse SatuSuro 08:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not need a separate article as the parent article is not very long. It is about one speech which has not received any significant international coverage is thus is unlikely to be of great special interest to Wikioedia readers in any case. It also can easily volate UNDUE and WP:BLP. The !votes about it "being part of a bigger picture" do not make any policy arguments at all. And the case at hand requires us to look at policies. Collect (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

significant international coverage? Check the links with my !vote. Covered in major uk papers, and even CNN. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's an unparallelled controversy and protest in terms of social media in Australia (his show is still radioactive in terms of major advertisers, and any whose ads appear are *still* getting deluged with sufficient complaints to withdraw), has had significant political fallout (with "the speech"), has spawned new organisations (witness the growth and power of Destroy the Joint) and has seriously damaged the influence of one of the formerly most powerful figures in Australian media. I'm inclined to wonder if the user who claimed there was "no particular wide-ranging effects" and "very little further analysis" has been living under a rock or has picked up a newspaper in the last two months. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:EVENT. Still being mentioned in the media so a keep in my opinion [15]. Sydneystriker (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:EVENT. Still being covered in the media and situation ongoing (sponsors Isuzu and Lincraft pulled out last week). Certainly at least as notable as Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy Oracle7 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call this one? There is a fairly clear agreement on Keep and many more compelling arguments than on the delete side ("President Julia"? NPOV?) Djapa Owen (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mea culpa. People from presidential republics often immediately associate the figure of the highest head of the governmental body with the title "President". I meant Prime Minister. Lguipontes (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - classic WP:NOT#NEWS (newsworthy event but with no enduring notability). And "died of shame controversy"? It needs a page move at the very least. I urge the closing admin to consider that many of the Keep !votes above cite rationales expressly excluded in WP:NOT. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly. There are a ton of strong arguments for keeping this article firmly rooted in policy, and on the other side, a few assertions that it somehow fits under WP:NOT (despite plenty of explanation that it does, in fact, have significant enduring notability, and no sensible explanation to the contrary). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - The controversy is indisputably notable because of its commercial effect and its direct parallels with the Rush Limbaugh affair, however the name sucks and I'd be keen to support a rename. 124.169.167.84 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really a very positive comment IP, how about actually proposing a new name in stead of just sniping at the current one? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies WP:EVENT with national coverage over an extended duration. The article itself could be improved of course. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - The !votes above cited EVENT as a reason to keep are failing to miss the key factors of determining an event's notability. A (mis)statement was the extent of the event -it has no enduring nature past that. There are reactions to do, and it clearly hurt Jones' program audience, but there's no apparent further fallout or actions that is affecting anyone else. Because nearly all the responses is negative in light of the statement, there is an immediate POV bias on this article that further makes it improper as a standalone article due to the lack of further impact. The current article on JOnes is sufficiently short to include any continued updates, though based on the timing and sources, outside of what has already hurt Jones' career, likely no more will be upcoming; including the incident within Jones' article helps to balance out the POV nature without ignore the fact that the event happened and people responded negatively to it. It would likely be different if he were a politician (much like the current Petronus scandal in the US), but in this case, he's more like our Howard Stern or Rush Limbaught - able to ruffle feathers but without little actual impact on the world at large and only ends up hurting themselves. Note that I do believe most of the important details from this page are already included in Jones' page, including the bulk of refs, and as this is a unlikely search target, deletion is proper instead of leaving behind a redirect. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here, and Wikipedia isn't a political forum for stupid remarks said by politicians or news commentators unless it has a major impact later on, which none of the keep voters nor the sourcing shows here. Advertising been pulled from his show is not a major impact on a global scale. For admin note if the consensus here is to merge (which I see very little to merge), you can not merge an article and then delete it per our licensing guidelines, it needs to be redirected with the history kept. Secret ^account 07:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertising been pulled from his show is not a major impact on a global scale" it does not need to be on a global scale to be a WP article. it has been covered internationally. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To address the nomination rationale: it's not an individual words or phrase like Romnesia. "Romnesia" and the news flurry about the term did not bring unexpected world-wide attention to the 2012 US Presidential Election. The attention was already there. This series of events stopped being an otherwise unremarkable to-and-fro between a conservative media personality versus a liberal political figure when it gained world-wide, significant and on-going attention.

I would venture to suggest that, barring a miracle, Julia Gillard's time as Prime Minister may be popularly best remembered for this series of events, especially outside Australia. Except with rugby fans, I am sure Alan Jones is almost completely unknown outside Australia, even after this series of events. At present the article title would appear to the great majority of Wikipedia readers about someone called Alan Jones, who might have died of shame. For those reasons, if kept, the article name must be changed to something more appropriate.

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Are you suggesting renaming it to something like "Died of Shame" Controversy? Djapa Owen (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. If this were "Aussiepedia", or somesuch, "Jonesey—Gillo ding-dong stoush of September 2012" would be an appropriate article name that would pickle my wombat. To be honest, I can't think of a better article name. Jones—Gillard "Died of Shame" controversy of September 2012 would appear to still not pass Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles as it refers to two living people. "Died of Shame" Controversy (oops: hit Save page instead of Show preview) is in my opinion a good alternative. Readers would still need to click through to find the participants. Fine by me. They are people in a sparsely populated, politically and economically stable and mostly un-newsworthy minor middle power.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The controversy had long enough of a shelf life, became enough of a recurring theme, and enough subsequent developments that it warrants an article of its own in the way that most individual political gaffes do not.Circumspect (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was a brief event, which boils down to "radio broadcaster said something controversial affair, he was heavily criticised, said sorry, and some advertisers pulled out of his show". Ratings didn't significantly change. It will have no long-lasting impact, and the only person to significantly impacted was Alan Jones - briefly, before he gets new sponsors to replace the old. It can be better - and more properly - covered as part of Alan Jones. In regard to WP:EVENT, which is being heavily cited as a reason to keep the page, this won't have enduring historical importance, and the impact was just to Alan Jones, rather than being widespread. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Still making news, more than two months later. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a distinction between impact and coverage. It had coverage - that's clear - but as the event had no impact except in regard to Alan Jones, the best way of treating it seems to be as part of the Alan Jones article. This is an event about Alan Jones - what he said, how it impacted his sponsors, and how he was criticised for it - but I'd rather spin off articles only where their impact is broader than the person the event concerns. I'd also rather wait until there is evidence that it will have historic significance than create it now and assume that it will. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Response: The died of shame speech led to Gillard's misogyny speech which was in turn commented upon by the leaders of the US, France and Denmark among others. That is impact, not just coverage. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did it? The article makes no mention of this, but yes, in the speech she made reference to it. That said, the speech was about Abbot and Slipper - I think it is trying to give this particular event a bit too much importance to say that it led to Gillard's speech. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media attention on misogyny in public life has been absolutely unprecedented in recent memory since Jones's remarks were made. Gillard directly referenced them in her speech, it's pretty bleeding obvious that it was associated with her deciding to make that attack at that point in time, and the connection's been written about in reliable sources in droves. The argument that these remarks were unrelated to anything else that's occurred over the last two months just doesn't make sense unless you a) haven't read any Australian media in the last two months, or b) you're just ignoring it because some Wikipedians seem to have a bizarre objection to articles about controversial comments completely regardless of any fallout, which is not a deletion argument that's actually grounded in any Wikipedia policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]

That's cool - I have no hassles if you see things differently. But although yes, there has been an ongoing issue in the media about gender politics, and the Alan Jones comment fell into this, that's not the same things as saying that this particular incident had sufficient impact to warrant an article, and to suggest that the attention on sexism only came after Jones made the his comment is going to be impossible to justify. More generally, we seem inclined to readily create articles on relatively minor media controversies now, and it feels like part of the reason is so that we can write large amounts (in this case heavily critical) commentary on something that would be regarded as having undue weight in the biography itself. It seems to sidestep elements of BLP, by bringing heavy focus on one aspect of someone's life because, after all, it isn't actually in the article about them. That others may disagree with me is fine, though - but we do seem to be giving up a bit on NOTNEWS. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, do not delete. Well sourced but not for a standalone article. Keep. It is too soon to know if there will be significant ongoing significance. If not, if it turns out to be significant, then merge and redirect to the journalists biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging any other content (I don't think there's much more to be merged, but...) is ok, but this is not a reasonable search term, so the redirect doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are cheap and don't hurt, and a redirect is a good place to keep the history that should be kept for its well referenced content and for the possibility of a future spin out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You wrote: "[i]t is too soon to know if there will be significant ongoing significance". I would would argue that your keep !vote might possibly be a very good argument to delete: any speculation of notability is at yet the realms of WP:Crystal balls. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YEa, this is completely counter to EVENT that says articles shouldn't be created until the significance can be determined. This is more of reason to keep in the Alan Jones article until, if it happens, becomes significant. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Redirect to Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)#.22Died_of_shame.22_controversy. Note that it is not a notability concern, but a WP:UNDUE concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more confident that the controversy should be redirected to the section. The controversy article contains only WP:Primary source material. The sources are primary sources with respect to the controversy and the reaction to it. There is no secondary source commentary. So I guess it does fail Wikipedia-notability. Keep the available for the benefit of reusing the sources, in the not-unlikely event that the cotnroversy proves to have long term significance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to re-read that page: none of the sources are primary sources, and there is extremely substantial commentary about it (both in the article, in this deletion discussion, and elsewhere). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read it, and re-read it again. With respect to the controversy, the sources are primary sources. They comprehensive and honest reports of what people said. The sources do not reflect that source's authors opinion about what people said, or even about the original quote that sparked the controversy. The sources seem to be all news "reports", and none of them appear to be "stories". As such, they are all primary sources, repeating primary source material. This is what the front pages of respected newpapers do. Are there any sources from the middle of the paper, the editorial sections, or from books discussing the subject broadly, or in a wider context? I haven't read every reference, maybe there is? See WP:PSTS, particularly in respect to what distinguishes primary and secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources, both in the article and cited here. There have been hundreds of thousands of words of 'stories' (not 'this is what he said' reporting) about this, several of which I and others have linked to here (as a "this is what you would find it if you did a two-minute Google search because there's tonnes of it" not a "this is all there is"). There wouldn't be many Australian political subjects this year that had *more* commentary, and you're claiming that there's none in existence. Can you see why I and others are starting to get irritated with people who a) know nothing about the subject, and b) are determined to have strong opinions about it without making the most cursory effort to understand said subject? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to neither group (a) nor (b). Would you please help me by pointing me to two leading commentaries including wider context? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a New Yorker article elsewhere in this discussion that was a particular nice one. But really, it would help if those non-Australians !voting to delete would actually do even a cursory Google search. It is incredibly irritating to have people claiming that stuff that's been in the newspaper every second day for the last couple of months doesn't exist because they can't be bothered to use Google. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I cannot find it in this discussion, the article, or the article talk page. Note also: I predict that in time the redirect (for which I argue) will be reversed with the appearance of reputable secondary sources (most likely printed political biographies). The significance of the story will go beyond Jones himself. In the meantime, Masem is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be on the talk page of this debate - I had found a few in response to Masem's queries, and some random user removed a lengthy conversation between Masem and myself to the talk page. The reputable secondary sources are published now. It's bizarre to insist on having a determined opinion on something, and insist repeatedly that something which does exist, in abundance, when you're completely ignorant of the subject and won't so much as Google it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it I think.

• (1) the New Yorker. Close. This article contains opinion from its author. However, the controversy is only mentioned in one paragraph, where the only opinion of the author I glean is "We haven’t heard such a blistering condemnation since Mitt Romney conceded after Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” that it was “not the language I would have used.”". As such, this is too little by itself to justify a standalone article. I do take it as indicative of future suitable coverage.
• (2) Sydney Morning Herald. No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.
• (3) the Sydney Morning Herald again. No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.
• (4) Herald Sun No. This is a factually accurate report of facts and does not reveal the authors thinking. It is therefore not a secondary source.

However, all these references belong in the Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) article until a spinout for the controversy is justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even if merge would be a reasonable option, given the article's size, this appears as a legitimate spinout from Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Cavarrone (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no size issue at Alan Jones, and Summary Style (among others) warns of spinning out material that is inheriently POV. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable controversy with ongoing coverage lasting beyond the initial news spike. --Cyclopia^talk 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename, as per Djapa Owen and The Drover's Wife. My first instinct, upon reading the discussion at ANI, and seeing that the article was nominated by one of our more outspoken inclusionists, was to come and close this discussion as a delete. However, after carefully reading the article, and seeing some of the discussion above, I have to agree with those who wish to keep the article. There is a lot of information here which is not in the Jones article, and adding it to his bio would be WP:UNDUE. However, I think that it needs to be in Wikipedia, under a better name; the current title is quite confusing. This is a case of a single event snowballing, but it's properly handled as a discussion of the event, not the people involved. Horologium (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - or redirect if there is an appropriate target. An Australian version of "Binders full of women", puffing up a controversial line from a speech into an article. Feathers are ruffled for a short time, then the drive-by media moves on to the next target. We can't keep making articles on this sort of thing; in the era of "gotcha" politics everything is pounced on and inflated by one's opponents. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete anything of import can be covered in the Jones article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason for deletion, see WP:BELONG. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As that is not what the above person actually said in the slightest, WP:BELONG is a wholly irrelevant response. In the Wikipedia we routinely redirect/merge attempts to make articles out of criticism/controversy events, as having a standalone article tends to put undue weight on the criticism. Unless the event is of true national and critical notability and it does not make the parent article overly long, a paragraph or two in the parent is sufficient for matters such as this. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). Important as it may be, it really is mainly an incident in his life. I'd hate to see WP have an article about every "controversy" concerning statements by politicians and news people around the world.Borock (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish people would a) read the article, and b) read the above discussions before !voting. The claim that this is merely an "incident in his life" has been rebutted at length with reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has rebutted anything of the sort, as what you claim is quite false. A public personality says something that people who alreayd don't like him *gasp* don't like. Whoop-de-fucking-do, it happens day in and day out. With Jones in particular, he's said a lot of things that people complain about; this is simply the most recent. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is already covered adequately in the Jones and Gillard articles. It really is just one event and as bad as the comments are they don't rise to the level of requiring their own article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNDUE, especially since this comes under WP:BLP. There are already two paragraphs in the main article, so there is no real need to merge. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE refers only to the balance of content within a single article, not to the existence of article. --Cyclopia^talk 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Over at Meta there has been a recent discussion to close Wikinews, as that project is not very successfull. The proposal failed. One reason given for the lack of success, by Wikinews editors, was that Wikipedia does the news better as there are many more editors and that WP:NOT#NEWS is too often not applied. I think this is a good example. The controversy is notable, yes. So it is covered in a fair sized paragraph on the article on Jones. This article here at AfD is covering the details that should have been covered at Wikinews. We really should be leaving Wikinews to cover news and not jumping in at wikipedia on recent events to write long newsy articles. We should let the dust settle to see what later sources say about the event. I gave a !vote above. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was unaware of this "event" until coming to this AfD. In addition to agreeing with several of the NOT policies stated previously, I think we are suffering from RECENTISM here; there is no reason not to summarize this after some historically objective period and place it in an appropriate subsection of the Alan Jones article. Why it's "notable" now is because it's ongoing, and this is exactly why WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a newsfeed. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would not call DGG 'outspoken' as an 'inclusionist'. Also, I can't tell from the sources that this will be more than one event. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Political and social event in Australia that meets WP:EVENT and WP:SIGCOV. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are seasoned Australian editors from both sides of politics arguing "keep" here. All of the "delete" voters [that] I know are from the USA and UK. With respect, they don't get it. This is a very notable controversy, and all that should be said about it can't possibly be said in Allan Jones without giving the controversy undue weight in that article. (I voted earlier.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Ellipsis added 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I'm from Melbourne. I still think this article is writing news and not an encyclopedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know you? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I'm being ambiguous. I've added "[that]" to my comment for clarity. 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just a case of switching the News on TV or reading the newspaper - because the media has been banging on about it for quite some time here in Melbourne. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that given the coverage that this article (the one being AFD'd), the present two paragraph summary at Jones' article is completely in line with that and certainly far from undue; much of what is in this article is quotes without context, which should be stripped anyway. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cavarrone and Anthonyhcole. Mr T^(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or reduced merge to Alan Jones. I agree that as a general principle controversies related to individuals should be treated (at appropriate, often reduced length) in their article, so as to avoid newspaperism and recentism as well as strawman/UNDUE NPOV issues.  Sandstein  10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you're referring to with "straw man"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant WP:COATRACK. Not necessarily in this case, but in general if we dedicate subarticles to specific negative aspects of a person's life there is a risk that they become merely vehicles for disparagement, and even if written neutrally the mere existence of such articles can result in an undue focus of one negative aspect of a person's life. It is normally easier to find the balance that neutrality requires if such aspects are covered in the context of the person's general biography. An exception could be made for people who are so notable that they have other subarticles already, such as U.S. presidents.  Sandstein  16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Jones article. Looks notable enough to merit mention in his bio, but not as a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikinews with a soft redirect. The subject is notable, and verifiable, but it is simply a news story, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sources do not allow putting this in a historic context yet, and as such this is beyond our project's scope. However, I cannot agree that the content should be deleted outright. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, trivia, more than adequately covered in the main article. "Someone says something controversial, everyone runs round in circles shouting Shock, horror!!! and doing their best to fan the flames" is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is here for. Also, Sandstein three above has a good point. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Winter

Black Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Greek black metal band fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources provided and I'm unable to find anything of substance in GNews or GBooks. Pburka (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Richard BB 13:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked for reliable sources and came up with nothing. Circumspect (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Codikow

David Codikow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person does not meet WP:BASIC notability requirements, namely coverage substantially about him in reliable sources. He does have passing mention, and interviews and statements where the actual topic of coverage is not himself, but his contemporaries. This subject may meet some subjective understandings of WP:ANYBIO, but not without WP:INHERITing a great deal of note. JFHJr (㊟) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable; I prodded it, I don't think the removal was justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely lacking in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all the evidence of him being notable comes from things that fail WP:INHERIT; article also seems a tad promotional as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I deprodded this because prodding is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial, obvious deletion cases, and this isn't one of those. This guy is a well-known figure in the entertainment business, and the article has multiple references, including a substantial PBS piece; more potential sources are visible through simple searches; and its editing history indicates that good faith editors have made serious efforts to strengthen the article. Such articles deserve the serious scruntiny of a formal AfD; they don't belong at prod. I also note that additional potential facts that might support Codikow's notability have been deleted from the article, when they might just as easily have been sourced: for example, Codikow's personal and professional relationship with Rosanna Arquette, which ultimately included not only their widely-reported engagement but also his producing her excellent documentary Searching for Debra Winger. (For example, there's a paywalled December 7, 2001 USA Today article, with the fetching title "Arquette bares artistic spirit", that appears to contain some discussion about Codikow and this film, although the paywall keeps me from seeing most of it.) Similarly his role in creating the Vans Warped Tour[16] was cut rather than sourced.

Now, having said all that, Qworty may ultimately be right that Codikow lacks the necessary WP:42 to support an article with his name as the title. I note that we also don't have an article about his even-better-known former law partner Rosemary Carroll. C'est la vie: Wikipedia's coverage of business subjects can be uneven, perhaps inevitably so given our appropriate aversion to self-promotional articles and the way our sourcing requirements work with respect to business media. But WP:PRESERVE might suggest there are some other appropriate steps that might be taken with some of this content. I will be interested to see if anyone else has thoughts in this regard. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Highbeam document linked does, at first glance, indicate Codikow was someone who started the Vans tour. Everything else I've seen says Codikow was one of about four or five founders, most of whom are not notable at all, and he not the front man in any way for the tour. In fact, it's amazingly difficult to parse out how important Codikow's contribution actually was. Reliable sources tend to indicate he "co-conceptualized" it, whatever that means. His creative input here, and possibly in the Highbeam article, are blown way out of proportion. If Codikow is actually the topic of coverage due to his relationships with Arquette and Carroll, then that'd be one thing. But everything I've found is actually about someone else. JFHJr (㊟) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability check as to substantial coverage; assertions to the contrary seem to fail the WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS test. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOTINHERITED. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not notable. Merely founding a law firm is not notable. Being sued in a tangential fashion in a Marilyn Manson lawsuit is not notable. Being engaged to Rosanna Arquette might be notable for some people, but it's more appropriately a sentence on Arquette's page, and maybe not even that. Being a one-time manager or a producer of a minor television show is not notable. As stated above, these accomplishments are just about Codikow's involvement in what other people have done. This is just a vanity page for self-promotion. WP:NOTINHERITED. Zacaparum (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Orange Mike and nom statement, both of which I find persuasive. Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Okropiridze

Yulia Okropiridze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 195.211.175.194, who posted the rationale below on the article's talk page. My read is that the nominator asserts that the subject is non notable, and that what notability exists is local. I note further that the sources do not appear to be reliable, at first glance - the one that might be, the interview, is a deadlink. Overall, on the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So very little known anywhere, including Ukraine itself! Never won anything important. An article seems to be a love gift or so from one of the boys that likes her, it looks like! Unimportant tournaments, nothing was won (except for the very local beauty contest...). Just plain nonsensical to leave it on Wikipedia, pretty NOONE in Europe is aware of Yulia’s existence and/or victories. A local celebrity for her own provincial city in Ukraine only... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.211.175.194 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14. Snotbot  t • c »  19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet the WP:GNG for Ukrainian ballroom dancers. Qworty (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a few things here concern me. First is the borderline-abusive IP comment; second is the Qworty post. (there IS no GNG for Ukrainian ballroom dancers...) Anyway, she was featured in Eurovision's Dance contest, which could bring notability - especially as she and her partner finished runner-up. Getting a bronze medal in the national ballroom championship may also bring some notability - however, this one is not referenced, so for this to be valid, a reference would need to be found. The second reference in the article is a dead link. If someone can find a reference for her getting the bronze in the national ballroom championship, I would vote keep, based on this medal in a national championship, and the 2nd place in Eurovision. At the moment, I'll vote a weak keep. The article needs a thorough re-write, but it is rescuable - I would do it myself if someone can find Ukrainian sources on this bronze medal. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - the IP nominator has never edited anywhere else other than this article as well; as I kind of suspected. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response': The notability guideline evaluations for this article should be thus: WP:ARTIST then WP:GNG. Does not appear to pass the artist line. There is questionable notability that may pass GNG, but without any cited facts, we can't prove it. Hasteur (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article consists of zero cited facts, weasal word phrases, and tenous 3rd party grabs for notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AllWinner A1X. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubieboard

Cubieboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. The one reference is very low quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. If they ever start selling them and get coverage in reliable sources, this could be a nice addition to Wikipedia, but those are two big ifs. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete. Evidence of the existence of this product exists. Interest exists, also, in knowing about all forms of Arm based SBCs. Personal prejudices against specific countries does not meet Wikipedia requirements for deletion justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.8.185 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please. Show me some evidence that the product exists. Then show me some evidence backing up your false accusation of "personal prejudices against specific countries." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it qualifies as evidence, but code has been submitted to the U-Boot mailing list to incorporate U-Boot support for the Cubieboard (^[1]). Also lots of discussion about it on IRC #arm-netbook (^[2]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.221.113 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to AllWinner A1X, which this is based on. Closing admin is welcome to ping my talk page to do merge. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No visible evidence of notability per WP:GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrapunto

Barrapunto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough. Arnaugir (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• week delete could not find any significant sources for this.--Salix (talk): 09:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the article says, this site has been the subject of several academic papers. Try a Google Scholar search. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:WEB because there's a "non-trivial published work [on the article's content] whose source is independent of the site itself". That is this study, already linked on the page, which appears to be an analysis of the website from a Communications Department at a university. Lord Roem (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The top screenshot here appears to be from Ciberpais, El Pais' technology supplement. It is definitely significant coverage, but I haven't been able to find a copy online. Reported as the second most read blog out of 2000 in a 2004 survey [17] [18], and second most relevant in 2006 [19] [20] (p.120). This article also provides good coverage, and these are short mentions but they have usable content [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. GScholar and archive searchs in El Pais and El Mundo [26] show that it is frequently quoted or mentioned regarding technology subjects — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hopelessly devoted to advocacy to the extent that the only way to write a neutral article would be to start over.The tone is wrong, the language is biased (there are 6 mentions of "rights" in the lede paragraph alone), there is no mention of any criticism or opposition, they take responsibility for the success of everything they've been engaged in (most of the references are not about them in any substantial way, but about measures they for which they are one of the supporters--they actually claim notability from testifying before a legislative committee.) A more elaborately bas article as the similar one also now up for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights.

I recognize that this is a controversial subject, so I don't want to simply delete it myself as G11, unless there's agreement to do it as a speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a notable organisation. I disagree with the practice of deleting articles solely because they're promotional. Yes, this article needs to be extensively rewritten, but it would be a lot easier to use the existing article as a starting point, rather than have to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally not remarkable. Clearly no one other then the creator is willing to defend this page. It must go. There is no article on gun ownership in any other country. Why should a small U.S. "club" get any mention. It makes no reference to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent violations of armed settlers. Leng T'che (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. RMGO is one of the most successful state level gun organizations in the country, and by far the most successful non-NRA affiliate state group . Their impact in the state-level primaries in Colorado has been duly noted by their opponents. Previous comments should direct their criticism to substance, not the mere fact that a defender happens to be a creator. "Why should a small U.S. "club" get any mention" -- this question is not valid. Please refer to notability guidelines to either prove/disprove notably or lack thereof. The great thing about Wikipedia is we have the ability to explore subjects and content to their fullest potential from historical context to modern implications, again the major criteria being notability. The lack of articles in other countries does not prove lack of notability in this case. It seems in the Gun_politics article, there are any number of notable gun organizations in other countries that could be explored further in their own articles. This article needs some touch-up, citation clarifications and revision. I don't have time tonight, but expect to in the coming days hopefully before the 7 days are up. Otherwise recommend re-nomination as alternative to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf68705 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it would be impossible to write an acceptable article, or that the group is non-notable. I'm saying that the present article is too promotional to survive, and that anyone who wants to write an article on it should start over. WP does not judge the merit of causes--rather, we avoid promoting any of them, even the most important. That this group is somewhat controversial is why I did not summarily delete the article, but is irrelevant to whether or not it should stay in Wikipedia. If you think you can fix it quickly, by all means have a try--I would have done so myself if I thought it possible, but this is the sort of thing where I like to find myself proved wrong. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep New revisions should address all concerns raised in this AfD. Notability and promotional issues should be resolved. The article is significantly better referenced than it was. Evident biases and promotional statements have been removed, criticisms have been incorporated. While I'm not immune to my own writing biases, remaining primary source materials previously argued to be promotion should now be within tolerance levels of notability guidelines that allow for some primary sources after notability has been established. Hope you like it. It was not a quick fix. Nevertheless, after spending a good chunk of my day working on it, it's done. Please feel free to proof my changes, fix any errors and add to it if you see something else. AfD should be closed with the result keep :) Rf68705 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not entirely sure why this was relisted after the changes. Article as revised would stand had it been created from scratch. Nevertheless, my previous comments stand. Sigh... I guess we'll just have to wait out another seven days of this... Rf68705 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've not checked the full edit history, but it's no longer promotional: enough use of words like "controversial", "strident", and accounts of criticism. Since we seem to agree it's notable, it should stay. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I favor a low bar on keeping political entities such as this; this is the sort of thing that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. That normative statement aside, there is more than adequate independently published and substantial coverage extant dealing with the group and its activities. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - understand why it was nominated (the previous version looked un-salvageable), but the subsequent clean-up was substantive and surprisingly effective. Grenade no longer necessary, in my opinion. Stalwart111 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having just taken a first look through, the article is not so inherently biased that it cannot be salvaged. That doesn't mean that I'd give the current revision a clean bill of health. Considerable (though more implicit) POV issues and associations remain, and the article should be tagged accordingly. I question whether a neutral article, written (or overseen) by disinterested parties can be expected to last for more that a few weeks after this scrutiny is lifted. The same POV & COI issues that brought us to this point are sure to creep back in.Celtechm (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Yaw Agyei

Nana Yaw Agyei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Qworty (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Portugal, San Jose

Little Portugal, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

seems to not make notability for a named area. i added one link to show no bias Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What about the other twenty-odd neighborhoods of San Jose of Template:Neighborhoods of San Jose? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A city the size of San Jose (tenth-largest city in the U.S.) certainly deserves to have articles about its notable neighborhoods. However, Little Portugal does not appear to be one. There is no mention of this neighborhood on the city's website [27] and I could not find any Reliable Sources about it, although it clearly exists based on lesser sources [28] [29]. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, that was not the city's official website. That was sanjose.org, not sanjose.gov. The official website is here and does not appear to have a section on neighborhoods. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Though not technically a speedy, I'm deleting this by SNOW--it is so completely unfit for WP that no other conclusion is possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cronin Economics

Cronin Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Personal Essay, delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTOPINION. There is nothing here that could be salvaged into an encyclopedic article. Monty₈₄₅ 03:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per the G11 criterion. While it's not your typical case, G11 is intended for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic," and its purview includes points of view. This article serves no purpose other than to promote its creator's POV, and is practically the definition of "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—terrible article, but it doesn't merit a speedy delete. An article that "serves no purpose other than to promote its creator's POV" has another name on Wikipedia: WP:NPOV. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCSD הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. No need for seven days discussion as content is duplicative of List of... article. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney XD Series

List of Disney XD Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one page links here and this article only contains 4 sources, 3 from IMDB. I'd suggest merging with another list. Astros4477 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirected to List of programs broadcast by Disney XD as completely duplicative of that more comprehensive article. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Lebanese people in the West Indies. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese people in Curaçao

List of Lebanese people in Curaçao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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