Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2 December 4 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Wood (singer)

Wally Wood (singer) (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)

Band member with no independent notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is about has band and his part in it. I found nothing bettter. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:03, 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, —Theopolisme 23:02, 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) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013)

Fear II: Tamil Short Film (2013) (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 previously put a Prod on this with the rationale "No evidence that this unreleased film meets the WP:NFF notability criteria." The Prod was removed by the article creator (who also appears to be heavily involved in the making of the film). A second Prod was subsequently placed on the article by another editor with a similar rationale: "Non-notable short, unsourced, not yet released". As a Prod is a one-off process, I've removed that notice and am instead bringing the article to AfD on the original rationale. AllyD (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 8 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) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashiontime

Fashiontime (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 topic about a Hungarian fashion magazine appears to fail WP:N. Additional opinion about the notability of media on Wikipedia can be read at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media). Several searches, including ones in GNews archives and GBooks, are not providing coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NMEDIA #5 it says a "significant publication in [a].. non-trivial niche market". Fashion is a non-trivial niche market. So the question is if this considered a "significant" Hungarian fashion magazine? We need some sort of evidence of significance. Unfortunately I am unable to find anything, magazines are notoriously difficult to establish notability (unlike books and films), being a niche market in Hungary even more difficult. Gut feeling at only 4 years old its significance has yet to be established, but who knows maybe it's significant in some way we are not aware, thus still worth further research if anyone cares to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:33, 8 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 merge to Gangnam Style. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style

List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style (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 is a content fork. There is no notable content here that cannot be found in similar article forks. There is already an article about this song. We don't need any more. See WP:RECENTISM Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Talkback) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Last time I counted, it was only two. The list is separate from the cultural impact section -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hasselhoff, Weiwei, Kapoor, Schmidt, Spears, Madonna, Hammer, Melanie Brown, Furtado, Ki-moon, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Vettel, Gayle, Djokovic, and Degeneres are 16 that are mentioned in both articles. To be fair, I should have added that many of these are in the "Live performances" section rather than just the "Cultural impact" section.  Gongshow Talk 23:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a fraction of the actual list, not to mention that I would have significantly expanded it (as I have been doing in good faith if you looked at the article's history), had it not been nominated for deletion -A1candidate (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My comments merely reflect the list in its current state, and I think it would be quite manageable (and without violating WP:UNDUE) to place the remaining 19 names (at present) in the main article in a couple brief paragraphs.  Gongshow Talk 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its more than 19 names now, it would be better to categorize the names in this article instead of merging -A1candidate (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not merge, violates WP:LISTCRUFT as its a trivial interception and indiscriminate list of subjects that are not notable simply for just "dancing" the Gangman Style. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:GNG as the subject of "celebrities dancing the Gangnam Style" is either trivial, primary sources like YouTube or human interest stories which we had consensus before that it's not fully significant of the topic. Secret account 00:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not News: You have to be more specific about why you think this is news
    • Does not fail GNG: Only 3 out of 50 refs are YouTube videos, and those 3 are official uploads (not user-uploads). Rest of the references are independent, notable sources
    • Not Listcruft: Subjects are chosen carefully for their prominence in various fields of life
    • Not recentism: The entire Gangnam Style and related topics passes the WP:10 year test: Its the first time a video approaches one billion views, its success is something that the South Korean music industry has worked on for twenty years and the song will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market.
    • Comment: The subject "danced Gangnam Style" is a notable topic. -A1candidate (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is that if any of these people are notable simply for dancing the Gangman Style, which they are not. You are ignoring my major concern completely. Your giving reasons why Gangman Style is notable, which it is, but list of people dancing isn't notable at all. All human interest stories, trivial mentions, unreliable sources, and so forth. Not an encyclopedic topic at all WP:RECENTISM for the list in particular, not the song. Secret account 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never encountered any rule/guideline which specifically supports your major concern. If such a rule did exist, a whole lot of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted: For example, almost everyone in List of atheists in music didn't get famous just for being atheists, just like people in this list did not achieve their fame from dancing Gangnam Style, but rather from their contributions in other areas of life. And I have been constantly monitoring this article in good faith, throwing out unreliable sources and ensuring that the notable person's dance moves is actually the headline/title of the source, could you please give some examples of the supposedly "trivial mentions" and "unreliable sources" that you claim exist -A1candidate (talk) 08:45, 10 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 SPEEDY DELETE. CSD#G5 Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passat Ltd.

Passat Ltd. (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 article from likely paid editor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most sources are not independent or not reliable, remaining sources are passing mentions. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 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. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style in popular culture

Gangnam Style in popular culture (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 is a content fork. There is no notable content here that cannot be found in similar article forks. There is already an article about this song. We don't need any more. See WP:RECENTISM --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article itself is based on the song, to expand sections of the song too long to make it comfortable for the reader to read. -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which is exactly why it needs to be deleted. There is little point in merging 5-7 articles that are all essentially the same. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7 articles is alot. It's still not a approved use of AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a multiple content fork. Duplicate info, and quite frankly, spam. It could probably be speedied on that alone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPEEDY?? Why don't you try and report back how that goes. You already failed with PROD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it will help a lot if User:Sue Rangell would provide more information on which parts of the article she thinks is duplicated. Also, I believe most of the references are provided to support and verify the content of this article, and does not exactly meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Spam. It would be great if to explain and be more specific about this -A1candidate (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 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 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Pastreich

AfDs for this article:
Emanuel Pastreich (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)

Was deleted a year ago at AfD. Recently recreated by a WP:COI editor. Still the same situation though - does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. The only new additions are two articles that mention the name. The first, appears to be a promotional piece about a book launch [3] and the second is an interview [4]. This does not appear to amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. It still appears WP:TOOSOON, and the self-promotional nature of the article recreation does not help. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case anyone is wondering, no, the current version isn't similar enough to the deleted version to be a speedy. The editor who created this also created an article about Pastreich's father, Peter Pastreich, which doesn't look adequately cited, either. Morwen - Talk 00:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am the creator of his bio. He is significant in Korea. I do not quite understand why parts of his page were furiously deleted. It took me a long time to research this person, and if there are parts that appear promotional, we can remove that, but as stated by another user, his standard meets WP:ACADEMIC. Per the comment about his father, I did not write his father's bio (don't know anything about that). When I was writing his page, I was comparing Brian_Toon, John Heilbron, and the books and article & essays section of Steven Pinker. I also started work on The Asia Institute, which, oddly, was deleted and redirected to a university more than two hours away with no bearing on The Asia Institute, but this is a separate matter. What is the next logical step about the Pastreich article? Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I meant the original creator of the page. It seems more likely would meet WP:GNG if Korean-language sources were included. Presumably he's done lots of interviews and been the subject of other articles that have not been translated into English and put on the web - if we can cite those that would be good. Morwen - Talk 10:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morwen, I think that is a good idea. He is definitely significant here, and I think I can get to work on sifting through Korean language articles about him. Actually, there were articles, but another user yesterday pulled them all down, and now it is hard for me to rifle through to those. Will re-start and sniff around in both languages. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To extend on that, for example, I just stumbled on a November 3, 2012 video that he is on discussing North Korea, on YTN. I think context is very important here, which I would put to the consensus committee. He is significant, it appears. YTN News Pastreich segment North Korea.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I input his Hangeul name in Naver (Korea's "Google"), he fills the entire page. Naver.com result of "임마누엘 페스트라이쉬" as of 2012.11.5. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear users, two days ago I sent an email directly to the professor so as to resolve this matter, explained to him that he has a Wiki article that is presently being contested by user ConcernedVancouverite and he responded this morning thus. Worth taking into consideration.

Snowfalcon cu (talk) 06:09, 5 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  09:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To summarize the current AfD we have the following information: 1) Article was previously deleted at AfD. 2) Article was recreated by a self-declared non-neutral editor. 3) The debate is if any new information has come to light in reliable sources that satisfy either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. 4) The bulk of the new citations added to the article are self-citations to the article's subject. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:13, 11 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, Mdann52 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Still no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Citation counts are too low for #C1 — probably this is a field that's not well represented in Google scholar, so this may not mean much about how well received his work is academically, but it does mean we have no evidence. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Striking David's !vote here since he seems to have changed his opinion below (is this okay, David?) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete largely unreferenced claims, no evidence to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep Four Harvard journal publications, directs a public policy think tank (I believe there are only five in Korea), and is an active scholar -- here is a link to his recent 2012 talk at Yale, and here is one delivered at Princeton (2012). He is shown here on television being interviewed about the Chinese Japanese island conflict on a major network (click and start at half-way), and when I type his name into Naver, he fills up the entire page. He also has numerous columns in Korean papers, at which a previous user keeps erasing. The reason why this page is ill-defined at present is because I am literally the only one working on it. When I told him in an email that several of us are discussing how "significant" he is, he (I imagine) rolled his eyes and stopped responding. He forwarded me to his postgraduate assistant, who has not responded much either (perhaps due to same). His papers are out there, as are his videos. He is most definitely as significant in Korea as he is in East Asian civilization work. He deserves to have visibility increased in this sphere of influence. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* the Yale colloquium does not forward -- in that link just click on Current Year and see WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 4:00 PM EAST ASIA COLLOQUIUM SERIES Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Pastreich was interviewed on Arirang television, Korea's biggest network for foreigners. Starts at 3:28 and ends at 9:02. All conducted in English. http://www.arirang.co.kr/Player/News_Vod_Full.asp?HL=H&code=News&vSeq=66676 Emanuel Pastreich of Kyung Hee interviewed about recent book. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2011 September; 84(3): 237–242.; Pastreich is mentioned four times on work directly related to his Wiki article. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* I came across yet another video. Here he is interviewed about his work, research, and public outreach, on KBS News. I watched the first six minutes. http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/program/program_seoulreport_detail.htm?No=4217 Snowfalcon cu (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per David Eppstein, GNG.John Z (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Asian newspapers and TV networks generally like giving time and space to Westerners living or working in their midst, not necessarily because they are notable back home. 'Professor' in many Asian countries often has a different connotation. I also think there is a strong whiff of self-promotion on his own website, to which some of the citations/references are linked.--Zananiri (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references in Korea Herald/IT Times and interviews, but mainly from invited lectures at Yale/Princeton etc. We have a field that is not highly represented online, so one way of inferring notability in the absence of reading through comments on his work in paper journals is looking at his demand on the academic lecture circuit. Generally speaking, humanists who are invited to the top school's guest lecture series tend to be pretty important. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pretty important or notable guest speakers at Ivy League schools seldom, if ever. write about themselves in the third person, as he does in his blogs on his website. Speaks volumes, I think.--Zananiri (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote seldom, but not never. Thus, this behavior is permissible. Besides, Steven Pinker writes in third person on his very own website, stevenpinker.com. I don't think we should wipe out his article just because his writes in third-person commemorating prose. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Permissible would be the appropriate term if we were comparing like with like. Pastreich is not even in the same league as Steven Pinker, an internationally acclaimed Harvard professor, whom Time magazine named one of the 100 most influential scientists in the world in 2004. And Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea is hardly in the same league as Harvard.
I did say 'guest speakers' so I will say it again: So-called pretty important guest speakers at Harvard or any other top school are in a different league altogether, compared to professors such as Steven Pinker, whom you have mentioned, especially if one cannot even readily establish the professional status in academia of a guest speaker. In a previous post on this Afd you stated, you told Pastreich what ConcernedVancouverite had said about him. Since you seem to be in touch with Pastreich, why not ask him directly about his previous professional academic posts and about his current official title given to him by his present employers, though this is what his official website says, as you say you have not seen it (always bearing in mind what I said before about 'professors' and their titles in Asia):
Emanuel Pastreich is a critic of literature, technology policy and international relations currently professor at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea.
I am surprised you were not curious or interested enough to look it up yourself, considering the time you have spent trying to promote the importance and notability of this man.To me, that, too, speaks volumes. I won't be commenting again on this AfD.--Zananiri (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not mean to offend, but my interpretation of what you wrote is thus. If you are a Harvard professor, you may write in third person; but, if you are not, well, then, it speaks volumes.... As to being in contact with him -- like I mentioned above, he stopped responding when I told him we were discussing how "significant" he is (my mistake). I am on my own in sniffing around in both languages and in writing his article. Thanks for the responses. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not in the least offended. I was not going to comment again, but you have, indeed, misinterpreted my remark about what is permissible. Anything which looks pretentious or like an affectation in such cases, is, to my way of thinking, best avoided. Actually, Steven Pinker does not do what you have implied. He only describes himself on his home page in the third person, for the benefit of those just passing through, but he writes about his activities and research in the first person. To anyone, who is familiar with his line of work, it may be wasy to follow his line of thinking on this matter. Your man, on the other hand, does it completely differently. Have a look look at his blogs. You may find it reasonable and acceptable or permissible. I certainly have not come across anything of this sort from a recognised important or notable person in academia. I hope you understand what I have been getting at! Or, to put it unambiguously: notable people should not have to advertise themselves in this manner. Steven Pinker, whom you mentioned as your example, does not do so. Absoluely nothing to do with Harvard or any other school anywhere in the world. --Zananiri (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep probably notable, given the Korean language references--but his "professorship" at University of Illinois at Champaign turns out to be an assistant professorship, probably more an indication of PR writing or naivety in the ed. here than deceit. I note that David E, who is generally a little more restrictive than I on academic bios, also said weak keep. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not wish to call it 'deceit' either, but I feel, one would and should expect more care and vigilance from someone who constantly writes about himself in the third person in his blogs on his official website--Zananiri (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what he exactly puts on his site, but I was the one who put a professor, stressing the article a because I wanted it to sound categorical. If the consensus here prefers I put assistant professor, that is fine, but then I would need to research what his exact positions were at Georgetown and SolBridge University. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Mainly b/c he seems to have acquired some local notability in South Korea in the press there. His citation record and academic work are unimpressive by American standards, particularly for somebody of his seniority (associate professor at close to 50, some 14 years out from the PhD). Giving a talk at a first-tier school (as opposed to giving a named invited lecture series, which is very different) is nowhere close to grounds for notability. RayTalk 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer It appears that a relisting failed, resulting in the discussion not being in a nomination log. I have Added it to todays log. Monty845 20:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? Question mark is because I did a fast, not in-depth review. The combination of that he is an author of 4 real books, has some stature as a academic, and has held many noteworthy or semi-noteworthy. Also, I have to note policy issues with some of the "delete" comments. Some are claiming that he is not considered notable in the real world. That is NOT the criteria; if it was we'd delete 3/4 of Wikipedia's articles. Meeting wp:notability IS the criteria, which is basically suitable coverage in sources. Second, while there is some vagueness in the exact structural interaction between SNG's and wp:notability, the triple construction here (of asserting that 1. The academic SNG is the applicable one and 2.Fails that SNG 3. Failing SNG means that meeting GNG is not enough.) is too much of a reach / not correct. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is. But, I found the Asia Times Online article just a few days ago—no comment above yours reflects that awareness. I think consensus would have a different mixing ratio had I found it sooner. Thanks. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— US Academia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as David Eppstein rightly observed, a mess. Academics need to pass either WP:ACADEMIC or, failing that, the WP:GNG to warrant inclusion. There's definitely consensus among those who argued the point that Alasti fails WP:ACADEMIC. If you leave aside the warring sockfarms, there's also consensus that the mentions in the media coupled with her publication history to date do not yet make her notable. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaz Alasti

Sanaz Alasti (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 on behalf of an IP editor. The same editor (and another) posted their rationales on the article's talk page; I have copied their comments here verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. I have, however, taken the liberty of notifying the article's primary author, User:Aafakhravar, of this debate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject lacks significance. She is an assistance Professor at a university not noted for excellence in her area.In addition the material is inaccurate, listing her as an author of books she translated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.213.83 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second her deletion. The subject is not an expert in her field. The wiki page is for the most part written as a CV and the principal author is the subject's friend. The boasting also is unsubstantiated by the subject's publication. Most of the credited sources appear to be translations and not actual works she contributed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two people above say the article should be deleted because the content is bad, and maybe it is, but this person meets notability criteria so the article should be kept. Here are three sources which support her notability:
  • "Blood Money: Crime and Punishment in "A Separation" : The New Yorker". newyorker.com. [last update]. 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
  • "LU faculty member presenting at NATO seminar in Sicily | The Examiner". theexaminer.com. [last update]. 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
  • "Sohrab Akhavan interviews Dr. Sanaz Alasti, Andisheh TV, Part 1 - YouTube". youtube.com. [last update]. 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


To counter the above point. One interview with the New Yorker does not impart notoriety. Andisheh TV is a Iranian satellite network that has no credibility, operates on a limited budget, has a small audience and is more akin to a local public broadcasting network. Lastly, the subject's invitation to ISISC is due to the uniqueness of her subject matter and not due to her expertise. She is a recent SJD graduate from one of the worst law schools in the U.S. Her one book was published from one of the worst publishers in the US. To impart her notoriety based on these factors would be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pieces to a puzzle. One source about the subject does not demonstrate notability. Several? That's different. But I will agree that Youtube is generally not a reliable source (though the underlying source of the video might be). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

≠I would usually agree with the above point except for the following. The key point though is the quality of the underlying sources not quantity. For instance, if the subject was quoted in 15 blogs, none with significant distribution or prestige, then the subject would not be notorious enough to warrant her own wikipedia page. Equally with this subject, we only have one passing reference in the New Yorker. The remaining sources do not indue the subject with notoriety. The article in the Examiner was a blog posting by an anonymous author, likely the author herself or an affiliate of the university she recently joined. It concerns a presentation she intended to deliver at a conference. Equally, the tv interview was with a unknown Iranian satellite station which, if you view it, looks like it was produced in a make-shift studio developed in someone's garage. So apart from the New Yorker interview, this new graduate hasn't done anything to give her enough significance to warrant inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In addition to all the valid points above about the credibility of the sources, translating a number of books in a subject matter and authoring a book would not make her pass the notability evaluation. Saeed (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is an international scholar, so some of her books are in Farsi(Persian). I just found out some of her books are available in the law library of prestigious law schools such as Harvard:

≠I To counter the above point. The subject books are available in more than 82 accredited law schools. How the author can donate her books to 100 accredited law schools?  :*{{cite web |url=http://www.worldcat.org/title/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-comparative-perspective-in-international-conventions-the-united-states-and-iran/oclc/317753158&referer=brief_results All of her books are published by credible publishers: Mizan publishing is the most prestigious law publisher in Iran. Vandeplas Publishing in Florida is just publishing legal academic books. Several prominent professors such as Russell G. Murphy, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston and Mark S. Brodin, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School have published their books with Vandeplas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically both Russell G. Murphy and Mark S. Brodin similarly fail to have wiki pages in relation to them. There's also no way to validate that Mizan publishing is the "most prestigious law publisher in Iran." Typically, international law texts and criminal law texts are published by established institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc. The notoriety of the publisher permits the reader to ensure that the book has been properly vetted. There's no suprise her that the author's books aren't being published by any credible publisher. The author is a very recent graduate of one of the worst legal programs in the U.S., Golden Gate Law School (http://news.yahoo.com/gulags-10-worst-aba-accredited-law-schools-062013031.html). The school which she teaches at, Lamar University, isn't even ranked by US News and World Report. However you spin it, this person is not a well-known or credible academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has been edited, and vandalised in part several times to question the subject notability. The main references that prove her notability have been removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who are all these people coming to comment at this article? Is this person controversial or something? This is a minor academic at a small university. She seems to meet notability criteria - which really is not so difficult to do because a person does not need to be well known, credible, or from a good school to get an article. Lots of new users seem to be coming to this discussion to talk about her - if she is so insignificant then who is this crowd? I just reverted someone's removal of a lot of sourced information, and the edit summary said that they were removing unsourced information. Some people are coming here with an agenda. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment A lot of the material was sourced but did not support the underlying statement. I have modified the language in the page to ensure accuracy and consistency with the source document. Interestingly, when you peel away the self-boasting, you see the profile of a mediocre professor with shoddy academic credentials. It's not surprising so many people are in support of its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely surprising that you and so many other people have intense interest in a mediocre professor with shoddy academic credentials. Usually unknown people do not draw a crowd. How did you find out about this deletion discussion? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the subject's controversial public comments. Most of those who are commenting are likely individuals who heard those comments, googled her, found this discussion and therefore found it interesting to contribute to. Myself included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We have articles with 1,000 views a day that need a lot of attention. It is wasteful for us to spend time trying to salvage an article with five views a day that needs a thorough culling, trimming and re-write. Based on the view statistics spiking after the AfD, I would surmise it's been read by more Wikipedians than actual readers. We could argue that the article merely needs to be improved, but the only editor likely to take an interest is the person themselves and those with a close connection. If someone wants the article kept, the strongest argument would be to demonstrate the article will be maintained to exceptional standards without absorbing the community's resources on an article of marginal value. Corporate 15:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course WP:Other stuff exists. However this argument is not grounded in any policy or guidelines I'm aware of. This is not valid AfD criteria. -Rushyo Talk 10:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is equally offensive for someone to use Wikipedia as a personal resume or promotion as it is for someone to use Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta or viewpoint. Corporate 20:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per sources presented by User:Bluerasberry. A low quality article is not grounds for deletion under WP:GNG. Rather, we should seek to improve the article with the sources available. Notability does not require you to be a particular grade of expert. You can be notable for being particularly bad at your field, even. There is some serious edit warring in this article preventing it from being edited helpfully and I feel it would be productive to give it a chance to grow constructively, then it might allay many of the concerns presented. NYT and Examiner is a good start, we can always re-propose it for deletion later if nothing comes out of it. -Rushyo Talk 12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am familiar with Sanaz Alasti’s work through my own collaboration with the ACLU in California. The ACLU is challenging the death penalty…as is Alasti. The death penalty is very controversial---particularly in California and Texas---the two largest death rows in the country. The ACLU is very controversial and is truly hated by certain segments of society. Have either of the anonymous complainants had any editing input on this article? The photo (rather frivolous) was reportedly posted by someone attempting to undermine the seriousness of the subject. Any serious consideration of this deletion attempt would include some background work…contacting N. Minsker, head of ACLU for Northern California or any of the other sources cited by Alasti. I have and she is very well respected. This deletion attempt is obviously political or personal or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divisionsymbol (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what qualifies as notable on Wikipedia. We do not subscribe to an arbitrary, subjective measure but have policies based around reliable sources which can be verified. If you believe the article should not be deleted on those grounds then you'd have a stronger argument. -Rushyo Talk 11:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for deletion is based on the subject lack of significance, but I believe she is notable: The subject has been interviewed in various media discussing her expert views on legal studies and criminology. Here are examples:

Interview in the New Yorker:

Iranshahr Magazine, published on November 25, 2011, which discussed the violence and discrimination against women. The subject picture has featured on the cover of the magazine:

Interview in the Examiner:

A part of her speech:


  • Keep Sanaz Alasti delivered an impressive public lecture on the death penalty in western nations and in the Muslim majority world at Harvard Law School in 2011. I am not sure why her critics keep complaining that she teaches at a less prestigious university (Lamar University) and thus in their view does not deserve an entry. There are many scholars at second and third-tier universities who are on occasion making more noteworthy contributions in certain fields than people at the elite institutions. It is also not true the claim that "Typically, international law texts and criminal law texts are published by established institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc." Though I have published myself with Cambridge University Press, many star Harvard Law faculty have published numerous texts with far less prestigious publishers. If Wikipedia desires to reinforce academic snobbery, by all means cut Alasti's entry. But having witnessed her make a fine contribution to pressing debates at Harvard Law School, I would be very disappointed if Wikipedia caved into a cruel campaign against a young scholar who most certainly merits having a modest entry at your website. John Trumpbour, Research Director, Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.47.2 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete The subject doesn't appear to pass any criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC (or WP:ANYBIO). That leaves us with WP:GNG and the only independent reliable sources are the ones immediately above posted by IP 72.86.39.103 (New Yorker and Examiner mainly). My issue here is this is an academic and an author, yet can't meet those notability guidelines. We are trying to squeak an academic author under the GNG wire with a few sources that in total are not terribly strong. I couldn't even tell you why they are notable other than being from Iran and having a PhD (the book itself doesn't have multiple independent reviews per WP:AUTHOR). Others above have said she is notable for her views on the Death Penalty, or her controversial views (unstated what), but none of the provided sources really get into that, so it can't be verified. She seems to be a visible professional, and may be notable for Wikipedia someday, but doesn't seem to be there today, based on the available sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The subject is probably notable. We should add more sources rather than delete the article. Some comments are made in bad faith. we should try our best to help the project. The subject passes at least one or two criteria listed in WP:ACADEMIC.Her research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. The subject has been very active in the movement for worldwide abolition of capital punishment. She is a regular speaker at conferences and seminars (in US. Iran and Europe) to bring worldwide attention to abolition of the death penalty. Here I found a sample of her lectures:

lecture at Harvard law school: *{{cite web |url= http://eventful.com/cambridge_ma/events/wrong-capital-punishment-contemporary-practice-/E0-001-038087688-5

Chair of the session at the American Society of Criminology meeting: *{{cite web |url= http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/asc/asc12/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Load+Person&people_id=3032613&PHPSESSID=ktmv4q0bflm3k4osm4se0kpks3

lecture on juvenile death penalty at the Policy Studies Organization: *{{cite web |url= http://domes.uwm.edu/proposals.html

Invitee faculty at NATO school seminar in Italy: *{{cite web |url= http://www.isisc.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158:opening-of-the-2012-seminar-on-sharia-law-and-military-operations-&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=89

lecture in Virginia: *{{cite web |url= http://mehrganfoundation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=156

— Preceding unsigned comment added by US Academia (talk • contribs)

None of these accomplishments are listed in WP:SCHOLAR as being notable. None of these sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am suspect of the votes above by US Academia, Sorenaaryamanesh, 72.86.39.103 - they all repeat the same syntax error in the cite template, it is like the fingerprint of the same person. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please look at the history of edition in her page, after December 3 some people came to her page to Vandalised. Anyway she is excellence in her career, she had a great lecture in Harward Univeristy in 2011 and her books published by credible publisher such as Vandeplas in Flordia and Mizan in Iran. She wrote two books in English and her translations are three different ones, look at the refrences 11 & 13 for her translations. She also has more translations and I found them in the following link which is a famous persian website.

comment added by hoveyathoveyat 21:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply translating books does not make a person notable. See WP:AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Green Cardamom, all of the recent requests to keep repeat the same English mistakes that seems typical of a non-native speaker like the subject. All of them are also from new wikipedia users who have only commented on this particular subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Blue Rasberry, Some people are coming here with an agenda. They are not here to edit and improve the projects, they are here to defame and attack specific articles. If you check the contribution of Kabirat, 62.177.153.18 and 83.117.158.247, they are just interested in editing articles on Sanaz Alasti, Lily Mazahery and Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. Their attempt is obviously political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorenaaryamanesh - are you accusing me of making defamatory edits for political purposes? If so, such attacks are themselves defamatory and wholly untrue. My edits to Fakhravar were made after noticing that like your subject profile, his subject profile was replete with unsource boasting. Needless to say, the article was already under review at that point from being written from one POW since Fakhravar was the sole author of his wikipage. For Lily Mazahery, her original wiki was created before she was found guilty by a court of law for abusing precisely the human rights victims she gained notoriety for. On that basis the changes to her page were supported by the DC Court judgement, which if you read here completely support the edits that were made: http://www.dcbar.org/download.cfml?filename=for_lawyers/ethics/discipline/pdf/hearing_committee/HCLilyMazahery21709etal. Ms. Alasti - excuse me Sorena - if you intend to attack other wikipedia editors for their edits, please ensure you have a proper basis for your defamatory remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was drawn attention to Alasti's false profile after she made public discriminatory remarks regarding Palestinians. At that point, the entirety of her wikiprofile had been created by Fakhravar, and almost all of it written from a subjective point of view. So naturally, after editing Alasti's profile to make it more objective, I noticed that Fakhravar's own profile suffered from the same deficiencies since it had been exclusively written by him. Indeed, it had been tagged by Wikipedia supervisors for precisely that problem. So I made edits to correct that mistake. Similarly with Mazahery, her profile suffered from the same deficiencies which are obvious when you compare her profile with the decision from the DC Bar which I have linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not for personal vendetta!
  • Comment This is not a personal vendetta Ms. Alasti, this is for correcting articles that clearly had a particular POV and which do not objectively profile the subject. There is no question that the original version of all the articles that have been edited were written by the subject or their colleagues without adequate sources, or bloating otherwise mundane accomplishments. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one's resume.
  • Comment Some people try to vandalised her page, Kabirat and 83.117.158.247 are those two people, they even change her origianal photo to a very personal image which was in her facebook page. comment added by hoveyathoveyat 9:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, these warring sockpuppets have created quite a mess for the closing admin to wade through, both here and in the article itself. Regardless, she appears to clearly not pass WP:PROF, and all we have towards WP:GNG is being quoted in a movie review and some local-newspaper talk announcement. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is excellence in her career, she had a great lecture in Harward Univeristy in 2011 and her books published by credible publisher such as Vandeplas in Flordia and Mizan in Iran. She wrote two books in English and her translations are three different ones.The subject has been very active in the movement for worldwide abolition of capital punishment. She is a regular speaker at conferences and seminars (in US. Iran and Europe) to bring worldwide attention to abolition of the death penalty. Here I found a sample of her lectures:

lecture at Harvard law school: *{{cite web |url= http://eventful.com/cambridge_ma/events/wrong-capital-punishment-contemporary-practice-/E0-001-038087688-5

Chair of the session at the American Society of Criminology meeting: *{{cite web |url= http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/asc/asc12/index.php?click_key=1&cmd=Multi+Search+Load+Person&people_id=3032613&PHPSESSID=ktmv4q0bflm3k4osm4se0kpks3

lecture on juvenile death penalty at the Policy Studies Organization: *{{cite web |url= http://domes.uwm.edu/proposals.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir hastibakhsh (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these accomplishments are listed in WP:SCHOLAR as being notable. None of these sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sanaz Alasti was a stellar research fellow at Harvard. Many colleagues at Harvard Law School will testify that she enlivened the global debate on the death penalty by bringing an international comparative perspective to the issues. Alida castillo 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alida castillo (talk • contribs)
Being a visiting fellow is not one of the criteria listed at WP:SCHOLAR. This discussion hinges on Sanaz Alasti meeting one of those criteria. It is how Wikipedia determines if an academic person is notable or not. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:57, 10 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) 16:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chan

Elizabeth Chan (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)

Fails GNG and even WP:CREATIVE. None of the sources seem reliable. The NYT "webdenda" ref doesn't even have a byline.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of this article would prefer it be deleted, FWTW.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I concur that it doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG criteria. Inclusion in a documentary does not meet "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". I don't see being involved in the production of a Facebook game as transferring any notability to the subject (even if we were able to establish independent notability for the game). Similarly being a newspaper author does not inherently meet notability guidelines. A case for notability could, however, potentially be made under WP:MUSIC. By the letter of the law iTunes chart does not qualify as a "national music chart." I'm inclined to challenge that and ask: What makes the iTunes chart inferior to a national chart for notability? -Rushyo Talk 21:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, iTunes isn't Billboard which has a more robust methodology then sales (Incidentically Billboard uses iTunes as part of their tabulation). But furthermore, this subject's work was ranked on iTunes "Holiday" charts. In September. At the moment it has 102 customer ratings. Considering that September is probably not a gangbuster time for Xmas sales and that the subject promoted this albumn the night before amongst friends, it is not unfair to assume this surge of downloads was anything more than a momentary blip. This is just puffery via social media.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going on "The lead single "A Christmas Song," reached #25 on the iTunes single charts on its debut." but noted. -Rushyo Talk 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that means anything. There are zillions of categories on iTunes, and there may have been only 25 songs in the Christmas song category to begin with!! Probably every song in the category "charted." It's quite meaningless. You could whistle or yodel a mariachi song into iTunes and have it "chart" for thirty minutes or so. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this aforementioned comment goes against some interesting reading I stumbled upon, perhaps you might recognize it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qworty#.22Oh_but_we_are_not_stalkers.2"Oh, and btw, the next time you trash other people's accomplishments, make sure you have accomplishments in your own lives that are bigger. Oh, 35, 40, 50 years old and don't have any that are bigger? Recognize that this is the real source of your "suffering" and learn to accept reality. Reality is not a tarot fantasy--reality is what is true right now and has been true for years. Qworty 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)" Just thought that was an interesting read. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is quite explicit that it is the singles chart [5] not the 'holiday chart', which is a separate statement. I've never referred to the latter statement and it requires a leap of logic to conclude I did. -Rushyo Talk 13:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't have her name anywhere in it. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I checked the source in question and there was zero mention about "The lead single "A Christmas Song," reached #25 on the iTunes single charts on its debut."  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of WP:42 was recently noted here, so not sure your qualifiers have been interpreted are not also mistaken. As mentioned here.[6] Also, the references that remain on the current article are not advertising, so unsure of the supposition. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed reflist error caused by this comment, IRWolfie- (talk)
Request from subject to delete the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What on earth has been going on here! I was alerted to this situation through fans to check this dialogue out. I am the subject at hand. Fans maintain the page. I would actually prefer no Wikipedia entry. I would like a copy of this log to be remitted to me to add to the investigation thanks! Rosepetalcrush has been logged numerous vandalizations on the page and so I think deletion is smart! and on other web entities for libelous issues. Feel free to delete! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbethxq (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This woman has slandered my name on Facebook and has mentioned this page to me several times in her rants against me. She is in charge of this page, not her fans. This woman is reporting me to the NYPD police for no reason. I have done nothing wrong in editing this article about her, and she know's it. She dislikes my comments about her music and is reporting me to the police because she cannot handle the truth. This is very upsetting. I would appreciate you not aid her in this 'investigation.' However, I am simply making a request. In the end you should do what you like. I'd simply appreciate some consideration on my behalf. User:RosePetalCrush —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There should be a block of any and all accounts making legal threats. I don't know why that wasn't done long ago. I am so sorry you are going through this intolerable situation. Qworty (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty - This is the subject at hand - do not listen to RosePetalCrush. She is using this wikipedia page as a method of communication and to gain the attention of Elizabeth Chan through her edits originally made on this page, not to meaningfully contribute to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RosePetalCrush. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbethxq (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty - Trust me. Delete the page. I need to rid of this person from trying to contact me or gain my attention.

This is ridiculous. I have no desire to speak with Lizbethxq. I'm simply stating my situation with this woman. --RosePetalCrush (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC) I am stepping away from this topic and will make no further comments on the talk pages at the request of a mod. I don't wish to cause a headache with the staff here. --RosePetalCrush (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Marginal notability plus seemingly legitimate request from the subject to delete = Delete. First Light (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per First Light. Andreas JN466 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject's notability based on the criteria for WP:MUSIC continue beyond the ending of Failure Club. Publish dates of independent sources about the subject followed her participation on the series. -Has performed music on Failure Club, published works of which were featured in a documentary (Yahoo! Screen) -Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio station (Townsquare) -Has been featured subject of a substantial broadcast across national radio and TV network (Townsquare/Duluth Minnesota & Tribune Broadcasting) -Has a prolific catalogue of music (200 Christmas Songs) -Has charted on a national chart (#4 iTunes) --69.204.251.91 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — 69.204.251.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No. You don't understand how Wikipedia notability works. Everything you're citing here is either primary sourcing, which cannot be used to establish notability, or unverified sourcing, which also cannot be used. These are the rules in a nutshell: WP:42. Qworty (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your mistaken again, as those sources are independent of the subject. Again, Your incorrect interpretation of WP:42 was recently noted here, so not sure your qualifiers have been interpreted are not also mistaken. As mentioned here.[7]--69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed reflist error caused by this comment, IRWolfie- (talk)
Looking at the reference list, none of those references are primary sources from the subject - or unverified. She does not work at the NYTimes, Yahoo!, Tribune, Or Townsquare Media. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't establish notability. They are just passing mentions. Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Qworty (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not all passing mentions. Read what you sent. These do not qualify. Plus there is a glaring omission to the fact that she was featured in 11 separate documentary long form pieces about her life. Docu-series, not reality show. Docu-series meaning a serialized portrayal of a single individual. Despite continued efforts to redact this very large aspect of the subject's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "docu-series"--it's a series of video advertisements put up by Morgan Spurlock to try to sell records. That isn't independent coverage by a long shot. Qworty (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously need a primer in the definition of advertisements. You like to throw it around like it's a bad word or something. Here since you love reading, Read the Fremantle buyers guide - which is a guide used to sell Television programming from Fremantle. You can't sell advertisements to advertisers by the way. http://www.fmescreenings.com/Brand/99347/failure-club Please take note of the genre: Factual, based on true stories. The runtime stipulating the show will be re-edited into 30 minute pieces for television.
I'm sorry, but your link cannot be used. It does not mention Elizabeth Chan in any way, shape, or form. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The genre of music in which Chan is focused is also of interest to her peers, (I forgot the comma - she is covered on many Christmas music blogs and radio stations, but those sources were deemed unfit for this article - despite the fact that the genre is niche.) , She is also prominently featured on ASCAP.com, the national songwriters consortium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placed a comma to elaborate my original note. --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI should be acknowledged. While those with a coi are not prohibited from participating in AfD discussions, it would be helpful if this article's sole defender would acknowledge the coi that has been alleged by an editor other than myself. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sole defender. Blanketed statement, please read up and note other editors that have weighed in on this topic. You love your blanket statements! --69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a "weak keep" that got argued down is such a ringing endorsement. Now do you mind answering the question? Qworty (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you didn't see this. Again, blanketed statements.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Chan&oldid=526554209, although this message was not integrated within this talk section for some reason. Makes me think you have COI with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please answer the question. Qworty (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to answer, just a fan. You reverted a change when I noticed the first instance of vandalism and accused me of an Edit War, when I was just trying to be helpful. So now, I've watched you lambast the subject arbitrarily, side with the vandal. Feel that someone should defend the subject page. That isn't a hater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP defending this article is a WP:SPA per an extensive editing history [8] and has been accused by an editor other than myself of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty is an editor who has defended the vandalism of the page of the subject, which calls into question the personal feelings towards the subject. Not editing with a neutral view and also mistaking WP tenets as called out on original article talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Differences of opinion concerning Wikipedia's notability requirements is NOT vandalism. Learn what vandalism is. Tell us how this perosn meets the requirements at WP:MUSIC. Read WP:VANDALISM. Get off your high horse. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually that's not what is in question. Notability requirements. Read up re: WP:MUSIC.

I have deleted the conversation I had with User 69.204.251.91. They didn't have anything to do with the deletion of this article. User 69.204.251.91 was correct in their comments towards me. I am removing myself completely from this topic. Thanks. --RPC 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt article and block IP SPA. The sources just aren't there, and neither is the adult behavior from the IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Insufficient sources; I did an independent sweeps of US and advertising-related publications and did not find enough. But my hunch is this person will be notable in future in the advertising & marketing world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In cases where the subject of a biography is in the grey area between what we consider notable or not, and that subject does not wish to have a Wikipedia article about them, we should defer to their preference without hesitation. Peacock (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" Agree that case for notability could, however, potentially be made under WP:NMUSIC based on the fact she was a subject on a documentary that was widely seen. Both her album and single has charted on iTunes, which is a significant music chart today. Has also received radio rotation airplay in the United States. Has been broadcast on a TV network in NYC on a significant segment focused on her Christmas music work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.248 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — 70.113.69.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - sourcing is thin, iTunes charting is not an easy indicator to judge, BLP issues have been and continue to be present, the subject has requested deletion (which we do take into account as one of many factors in borderline cases)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject has requested deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are present. The sources added to the article by User:WaterwaysGuy demonstrates that this topic meets point 1 of WP:WEBCRIT (particularly the The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media, Commentary Magazine and Zeek Journal sources). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Ideas Daily

Jewish Ideas Daily (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 topic about a website that reports upon matters regarding Judaism and Israel appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. Several searches have not provided coverage in reliable sources about the website. Information from the website has been reprinted in reliable sources (e.g. this Jerusalem Post reprint), but not finding coverage about the topic itself. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Adding sources to article in need of improvement. Significant online news site within a particular religious community. Have now added significant coverage from reliable sources of this newish (founded 2010) web magazine. I will try to find time to add more. IMHO, this article needs improvement, not deletion.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 20:55, 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) -- Cheers, Riley 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Shields

Michael W. Shields (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 was deleted in the AfD for the subject's pen name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. X. Reid and was then created under this title the next day. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that recreation under the real name was suggested by one of those giving a "delete" opinion at the last AfD. Is there any substantive reason for deletion, other than that the pseudonymously titled article was deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article on Reid seems to have been deleted on the basis that the only references were mentions of Reid in Shields' books. That reason obviously does not apply. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Mike Shields is notable as an academic in his own right as well as the pseudonym F. X. Reid. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservation I declined G4 as the article is not the same (even though about the same person). This gives a fuller picture of both sides of the subject. While I am fairly sure that the subject is notable, I would like to see better referencing in terms of WP:RS. There's a bit too much close connection for me to be totally happy. Peridon (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 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) -- Cheers, Riley 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín Rojas

Benjamín Rojas (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 notability, secondary roles on TV no true source (it doesn't work) Esteban (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: AfD wasn't originally listed anywhere so I'm adding to today's log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frankie (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 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) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Kantrow

Louise Kantrow (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)

Kantrow has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't appear notable. Delete per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 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) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rokform

Rokform (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 creator disputes the deletion of this as an A7 asserting that the sources are sufficient. I disagree as I feel this is promotional and in the words of the creator It has coverage in CNET, CNN Money, Mashable, WIRED, etc., but many of the articles are routine product promotions. In other words there is not the necessary depth of sourcing. I have therefore listed this so the sources can be discussed. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This Rokform topic was in a user page that was listed at MfD. Before that, it made a variety of rounds around Wikipedia. The MfD was closed and the user page was moved to article space by Spartaz after this discussion, who then listed the article at this AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for setting this up for me Spartaz. As background for reviewers, I submitted this to AfC, it was approved by Noun, then deleted by Spartaz. It does have - for example - a 1,300 word product review-type article in WIRED. Noun feels it passes GNG and Spartaz feels it doesn't pass CORPDEPTH (both reasonable views in my view). I have a disclosed COI and have included all the available sourcing. I was hoping the AfD discussion will deliver a clear consensus one way or another, so I can let them know the decision. Much thanks for your time and consideration. Corporate 16:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WIRED article is fine for a reliable source, but it is about the Rokstand product topic, not the Rokform company topic. If the material did not originate from Rokform, how did ubergizmo[14] (cited in the Wikipedia Rokform article) and WIRED[15] obtain the exact same photo? Also, the WIRED article you tout says that the Rokstand is "the most over-engineered accessory ever made," and "The price for this monster is a whopping $170" and equates the product to "an oversized, hand-machined, aircraft aluminum pen-holder, which weighs a satisfying two pounds and will cost you just $200." Corporate Minion, you keep throwing your "I have a disclosed COI" around like it's some sort of badge of honor. Why didn't you put any of that negative coverage from the WIRED article in the Wikipedia article that you created? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Except for perhaps US Federal News October 15, 2011 (Rokform US Trade mark issued), the only source information I'm finding is press releases. Rokform appears to favor AP Alert when it comes to releasing press statements, but Rokform has also used PR Newswire, States News Service, Targeted News Service, and Telecom World Wire. Given the number of press releases (30+) and that the company has only been around one year, seems likely that the material in the sources cited in the article originated with Rokform. WP:GNG requires that the sources be independent of the subject Rokform and news released by Rokform is not independent of Rokform. Another problem is that the topic needs to have received enough coverage in reliable sources so that the quantity of information that can be posted in Wikipedia can amount to a stand alone article. The quantity of text now in the article does not amount to a stand alone article and the likelihood there being reliable source material available to expand the stub into a stand alone article is very unlikely. The quantity of reliable source information available to be posted in Wikipedia will not amount to a stand alone Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references are self published materials by the company. thisindependent source is just a routine announcement of various new products and Rokform is merely a bullet point in a routine new product announcement. Having products that have been reviewed does not make it generally notable.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 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. MBisanz talk 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideaca

Ideaca (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 poorly sourced Consulting company. Unless we regard "largest SAP partner in Canada " as a sufficient, there's no evidence for notability . DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree with DGG. "Largest SAP partner in Canada" statement removed along with citation. article aligns with guidelines. Andygao24 ( talk ) 09:51, 22 November 2012

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which reference was not compelling enough for "you" to deem company is notable. Under notability guidelines, there should be a good-faith search for appropriate references. Andygao24 ( talk ) 11:44, 26 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, Wifione Message 15:19, 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 argued that the subject had not received coverage which would have demonstrated notability via GNG j⚛e deckertalk 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observe Hack Make

Observe Hack Make (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)

Speedy declined. Advance publicity for a conference. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Can't reasearch notability of the event because it hasn't happened yet (" Your search - "Observe Hack Make" - did not match any news results."). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no deadline, plenty of time to summarize all the coverage of this event after (if) it happens. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is simply WP:TOOSOON for an article for this event. I wasn't able to see any extensive coverage for this event in any independent and reliable sources. You can sometimes have upcoming events have enough notability to warrant an entry, but it's fairly rare and usually only occurs in extremely high profile events. This is not one of those events. I don't really have a problem with the original editor userfying it. I do want to note that some of the previous hacker conferences such as Hacking at Random look to have some notability issues as well. If they're all part of one large conference, it might be better to make one large entry encompassing all of them rather than a page for each year's individual conference.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:13, 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) 16:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIESEC Aarhus

AIESEC Aarhus (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)

article with no third party sources: a promotional article about a non-notable local chapter of the group. The international group is notable. By our standard practice, a particular city;s branch is not unless there are very good specific sources. I . deleted an earlier version for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 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 00:07, 26 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, Wifione Message 15:13, 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) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMS chat

SMS chat (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)

WP:NN app which is bundled with low-end Nokia phones. The only reference is a patent. Pburka (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: This is just Short Message Service, isn't it? ⊾maine12329⊿ talk 10:52, 10 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) 16:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Syamim Yahya

Ahmad Syamim Yahya (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. The article was recreated within twelve hours of being deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no remaining arguments for deletion. WP:SK. j⚛e deckertalk 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W D Moore & Co Warehouse

W D Moore & Co Warehouse (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 indication of its notability. The fact that there was a fire there and it sold for 15,000 pounds once says nothing about its notablity Gtwfan52 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gnangarra 23:19, 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 no consensus. There seems to be no interest in outright deletion here. Further discussion about whether these details should be included in the parent article or remain separate should be handled on talk pages or in a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings

Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings (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)

Unnecessary split. Many articles about authors include even a large section about themes and styles. Compare Mary Shelley, Ernest Hemingway, Honoré de Balzac, etc Tomcat (7) 11:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who created the split article, during a GA review and a copyedit, so although I don't care about this one way or the other, I thought that I'd chime in. I found trying to assist with improving Fyodor Dostoyevsky a frustrating experience, mostly because of Tomcat7/Kurbis' demonstrated inability to accept feedback, and not just from me. This is yet another instance of this editor not taking any advice and trying to force the D article through GAC. Even though I've kept it on my watchlist because I'm curious about what will happen, I've washed my hands of the whole affair, so I don't have any opinion regarding the deletion of this article. I believe, however, that reinserting the content in this article will make things worse in the main article. Comparing the main article with the above examples is laughable, which is a shame because Dostoyevsky should have a high-quality article that's not bogged down like it is now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was. [16] To Tomcat7's credit, he was the one who put it the summary before I was able to do it myself. Interestingly, that version remained until Dec. 3, [17] when Tomcat merged the content from this article, right before he made the request to delete this article. Again, a demonstration of his inability to accept feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state what exactly you don't like about the inclusion of this small article into the main article? Why do you want to redirect people to unnecessary subpages? Why do you think that a section describing his major achivements should be split from the actual article? Why should it be trimmed down if it perfectly fits on the actual page?--Tomcat (7) 15:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. It's not a "small article"; it's over 2,000 words long and its inclusion makes the original article much longer. Readers don't tend to read extra-long articles, and forking sections of them into new articles is a common practice in Wikipedia. If someone is interested in the topic, they can simply click over to it. This article doesn't describe D's major achievements; it describes the themes in his works. It has the potential to be a much longer and more developed article as well, if an editor with knowledge about the subject decides to research and expand it. D is an important enough writer that I'm sure scores have been written about his themes. Regarding "trimmed down": please read WP:SS as Torchiest suggests above. It explains the practice of forking articles and summarizing them in a parent article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, why should we split something that talks about the author's main achivement, namely writing books? Also this article receives very poor views, a clear sign that such a split destracts readers. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. And the content prematurely merged into the main article should be removed immediately. Merging it in before any discussion takes place is a highly arrogant and aggressive move. The main article is already at 100k and growing. Putting this stuff back in only contributes to the bloat. And I agree with Christine. The nominating editor has consistently demonstrated a chronic inability to collaborate with other well-intentioned editors. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fyodor Dostoyevsky for now and continue merge/split discussions on article talk pages. It's not clear that the initial split-off was done by consensus, so I am recommending restore the article back to how it was pre-split, and then establish consensus on how to reduce the size of the article via talk page discussions. If I am mistaken about the history of events and there was consensus to do a split, I will change my vote to Keep and let Tomcat7 try to get consensus to do a merge. Either way, merge/split consensus building should be done via Talk page merge/split votes and not via AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 8 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. MBisanz talk 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Bold text===JayData===[reply]

JayData (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)

Refunded after a contested PROD, but the issues still persist. Sources are either unreliable or not independent. Nothing I can find suggests this passes the basic notability requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beat me to it. Spam from developers. Lacks coverage in indepoemndent reliable sources. A search finds more JayDatas own site, blogs and forums. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guys, bear with me, but I wouldn't have spent collecting technical information to spam with an opensource library. The library has been enlisted on Microsoft Developer network (see the first MSDN reference) and it's acceptable to have the official documentation in a blog, please do not expect any reference to a book to a new tool, or fancy press releases bought for $1000 (that would be spam). How should I improve the this article? Other articles (TypeScript, Knockout.js) have been accepted by technicians. 4000+ developers have downloaded the library for free, and the development team answered about 100 questions in the forums and blogs for free. I thought a WikiPedia article would help them to get more info for free, I'm disappointed now. Bonayr (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Bonayr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Googling for JayData reveals 19K links. Excluding sites that are under the direct control of the JayData project still leaves us 17K links from various mobile dev sites, stackoveflow.com, etc.. Google for this: jaydata -site:jaydata.org -site:jaydata.codeplex.com -site:github.com Peter Aron Zentai (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Peter Aron Zentai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Google hits and forum postings are not indications of notability, see WP:GHITS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. WP:Existence_does_not_prove_notability says "you need to have received coverage in more than one independent reliable source". Ref1 (Microsoft Developer Network) and Ref13 (official website of open data protocol) are enlisting the library, I hope this indicates the notability. Please let me know if other references pointing to the relevant page of the documentation should be deleted, I hope readers will find it useful. Bonayr (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple download listings like those two don't qualify - the general notability guideline requires 'Significant coverage' - that means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Those two links are what we call 'trivial mentions'. We need a couple of sources that are specifically about JayData and cover it in depth. - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you recommend to include this link (05.29.2012): mobile.dzone.com/announcements/jaydata-unified-data-access ? It speaks about JayData and has a huge visitor number. R15 and R17 delve deep into the subject and was published by a professional consulting company (the outside of the development team). Bonayr (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, dzone posts user submitted content, and that's what that is: a post submitted by a member of the JayData community. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I see this right we are disputing if the 'Significant coverage' is met. Reading WP:GHITS did not reveal me anything that would back your point of view, but maybe I have missed something. It says that the correlation between google hit count and coverage is not a rule of thumb, needs considerations.It's a general guidance that suggests me that this topic do have coverage. Also, since there are more then two blog posts from independent sources detailing JayData (listed as references) we just arrived to a point where those sources are judged and none of them you found reliable. I don't know how such a claim can be justified. Those sources have contributed content to the community prior the JayData library ever existed.Peter Aron Zentai (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This smacks of an advert, in addition to the comments above about independent sources. If it's really new, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON?Roodog2k (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (6th nomination)

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

The result was speedy keep. This was just a sockpuppetter attempting distraction. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (6th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (5th nomination). Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorasara,Dildarnagar

Gorasara,Dildarnagar (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 really that notable. GirlWather20 (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorasara,Dildarnagar (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 really that notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus-Simulator 2012

Bus-Simulator 2012 (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 event and game, fails WP:GNG Mediran talk to me! 08:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not apply to software -Rushyo Talk 13:22, 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 no consensus. I hate to come to that conclusion after such a long and involved discussion, but here I see no alternative. Editors have addressed the central question at an AfD ("Is sufficient reliable source material available to write a comprehensive article on this subject?"), and have come to different conclusions about the answer, several of whom on both sides gave positions which made clear they carefully examined the source material available and didn't just do a drive-by or reference list count. Many thanks to those editors who did careful examinations of the sources available, and refrained from bringing in irrelevancies such as Google hit count, membership size, number of employees, and the like. An additional confounding factor in the determination of a clear consensus is that several editors favored deletion based upon the article being a blatant ad, and it is not clear whether they consider that concern to have been resolved by subsequent editing or not.

I suspect we might be re-examining this issue a few months down the road. Hopefully, with the article in better shape at that point, we can get a better idea of whether this is a suitable topic for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Gun Rights

National Association for Gun Rights (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)

Relisting, lack of consensus Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Well past the allotted discussion period. Cited in adequate third-party sources. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no significant reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Given references are primary sources or don't mention the association. Claims are not cited. Would be happy to keep if these are met. heather walls (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After researching for a bit, the majority of content I found online was from unreliable sources (blogs, special interest groups), primary sources, or mere mentions that share little to nothing about the organization. Appears to fail general notability guidelines for me. SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as passing mentions and blog coverage is not the in depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to be just barely informative and referenced enough to survive. The group is to the point of being notable. Registered, active, filing regularly income and expenditures, getting some mentions and light coverage. The article should be de-politicized and de-advertorialized quite a bit by an outsider.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the Gun Owners of America page faces the same kind of issues, and the NRA's page also references it's self multiple times, yet there isn't a deletion discussion going on over there. The suggestion that there are no significant reliable secondary sources in the NAGR article is highly subjective. Several credible news media outlets are referenced. NAGR's notability as an established PAC is further established on Open Secrets, and it looks like they have a growing influence by those numbers. A quick Google news search reveals more sources that seem to implicate it's 501c4 counterpart. Perhaps these should be added to the article. I say we give this article time, and let the community touch it up with more references instead of jumping to deletion conclusions -- especially when the subject is politically controversial. To do so may suggest a bias against the organization or it's positions instead of a fair evaluation of it's worthiness for Wikipedia. --Rf68705 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and Request Close of Discussion Ok, I’ve spiffed up the article. This page now has more citations than most other gun groups. These references include non-original source references and news references including the Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, the filings of the organization in Virginia, legislative references and testimony, financial information and several neutral political news services, and links to articles from other gun groups they’ve worked with.

Membership claim is now cited. (Even the NRA's membership claim was a self-reference and that link is currently broken, and GOA's references their own press release. NAGR's reference is a court document, sworn under oath). Included references to the groups 2012 activities and expenditures (Open Secrets and the FEC), which is more information than other groups in the Gun interest groups in the U.S. category have.

The group’s expenditures are more than a drop in the bucket, and far exceed other groups with uncontested pages. In fact, the referenced sources show that the group's notability through their expenditures is growing quite significantly. Furthermore, their lawsuits are quite relevant to current debates on post office concealed carry laws, and campaign finance laws. Let the readers decide that, if necessary add to it.

Gun rights groups tend to have a lot of blog and forum entries that show up on a quick Google search. I’d encourage folks to dig deeper than page one before assuming the relevance isn’t notable.

Keep in mind, per the criteria of notability for organizations “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” The sources provided, and those recently added, are sufficient to establish the required initial notability.

Additionally, unregistered IP addresses have been making edits and accusations about this page without substantiating them and one has admitted a personal bias against this group’s VP. The Wikipedia community has a responsibility not to arbitrarily delete articles because someone simply does not like the group or one of its leaders. That responsibility is even more important for articles about political organizations that have enemies with motive to vandalize, discredit or delete it.

Those who have concerns about the facts of the article should take them out through appropriate critiques and edits of the content, instead of slinging personal attacks on the talk page. The fact is, this group isn’t going anywhere, and people who have/will received letters and emails from them are going to want to know more info about the group and will be looking for an unbiased reference. So here’s the chance for the Wiki community to provide it. Let’s get to work.

In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I have connections to the group, and welcome NPOV critiques and edits. But, deleting this page would be a very biased and inconsistent move, and would necessitate the deletion of several other organizations pages for the same reasons. Therefore I request this discussion be promptly closed and the article NOT deleted. --Rf68705 (talk) 21:58, 13 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, MBisanz talk 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm just gonna point out that a straight Google search for the exact name of the organization returns 2.6 million hits and offer my opinion that this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. If there are problems with the neutrality or tone of the piece, fix it. If there are problems with sourcing, fix them or tag for more sources. Don't let IDONTLIKEIT feelings get in the way of a comprehensive encyclopedia... And no, I'm not a gun owner, and yes, I think an organization which lobbies for enhanced firearms privileges characterizing itself as a "civil rights" group is asinine. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My counter argument is that if there is a big enough iceberg showing on the Google radar, one can be damned sure that there are enough reliable sources out there to make a snowcone that will pass GNG muster. I'm a believer in following WP:BEFORE, which, if nothing else, means that nominators should run a quick check on Google and if an organization returns, let's say 2.6 million hits, assume that it is going to pass GNG and take other action to fix what ails a piece. This never should have been brought to AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as promotional The WSJ article is enough to establish notability , but the article is hopelessly promotional beyond the scope of normal rewriting The entire tone is promotional. The entire body of the article is composed of quotes from supporters of the association. There is not one word of negative comment, besides that implied by 1 of the 4 political candidates they supported having lost an election. (A 2nd of them lost the general election also, but the article says only that he won the primary). There is an irrelevant paragraph about the organization's president supporting Ron Paul at the Republican convention. I can see no way to deal with it except starting over, But I don't want to do this as an admin by myself, unless there is some agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I know this might be quibbling, but the WSJ article I see is 90% about the NRA with a couple of small paragraphs from NAGR. Pardon me if there is another.)
Support speedy. heather walls (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is potentially valid: the article is not. The fact of the matter is there would be more worth in salting the earth and starting over than in attempting to rewrite the current version - this is the most efficient way. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Respectfully, statements above regarding notability are generally the same as they were when the AfD thread was first initiated and opponents have failed to address points I have made, or the changes made to the article that addressed the initial concerns regarding notability. Only one source has been cited in effort to discredit the subject’s notability resulting in one cherry-picked reference out of over thirty being skewed to fit one persons narrative.

As far as I am concerned this is a case of a few people with a vendetta against the subject trolling the article, by applying their own subjective standards here, but not other similar, yet generally uncontested articles written in a similar fashion. Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the potential for vandalism that exists by real life political opponents of the articles subject (including other "pro-gun" groups, as well as "anti-gun"), deletion should heavily scrutinized.

As I explained I my previous post regarding Google searches, its important dig deeper than page one on a Google search before assuming the relevance isn’t notable. Just because the few people here did not find a bunch of noteworthy sources at the click of a mouse does not mean they are not there.

Last week I edited the article to in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. In doing so, I provided the article with many credible references not seen on a Google search that contribute to notability that were not present when the article was first nominated.

As outlined by Wikipedia standards of Notability for organizations, several items establish PRIMARY criteria for notability as follows:

Items that contribute to the Depth of coverage, Audience, and Independent Source criteria include:

• Reference # 2: Wall Street Journal o Independent Source o Depth (being recognized for differences between themselves and other groups) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 11: USA Today o Independent Source o Depth (Uses the organization as a source/interview for their story on a legislative issue of national prominence) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 12 & 17: Politico o Independent Source o Depth (Director’s role at the Republican national convention / organizations role in the Iowa Straw Poll) o Audience (nationwide penetration, political audience, Iowa market)

• Reference #21: Courthouse news o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience (nationwide penetration, followers of court and legal news)

• Reference #23: Billings Gazette o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience(Montana market)

• Reference #24: United Press International o Independent Source o Depth (Organization’s involvement in a lawsuit to overturn gun bans in post offices) o Audience(International, likely US media markets to pick up the story)

• Reference #26: Denver Channel – ABC 7 News o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations involvement on the campus carry issue) o Audience(Colorado market)

• Reference #27: Nationalreview o Independent Source (self-admitted conservative bias, but no affiliation with group) o Depth (Organization endorses congressional candidate) o Audience(Conservative national audience)

• Reference #19 - Colorado Legislature o Independent Source (Not applicable, though made available by the CO Legislature) o Depth (Organizations materials referenced by legislative committee) o Audience (Colorado market / Colorado legislature)

• References #13, 14, 15, 19 o Independent Source (Local groups with similar goals, cite the organizations involvement in matters important to their constituencies) o Depth (Organization has made notable relations with other groups, testified before multiple legislative committees.) o Audience (New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah gun enthusiasts)

• References #29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 o Independent Source (Official government or credible reporting service) o Depth (Organization has raised and has spent significant sums of money) o Audience (Made available to anyone)

And again, “once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”

While Google as accurately been criticized as not being a source to establish notability, Google should also not be the sole criteria for disproving notability. In fact, WP:BIO, specifically states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics.” I submit that applying this standard to organizations is a natural extension of a well made point. Points made above referencing Google searches to disprove notability should not be well taken.

The changes made to the article, and the articles in its current form are very comparable, and in many cases MORE well referenced than articles about similar groups.

The fact that discussion of those changes and points has been ignored could be construed as prima-facie evidence that a bias against the articles subject the true motivation behind the efforts of some to delete this article.

If there is dispute regarding the article notability, please comment on the specifics, as I just have, instead of general impressions, subjective presumptions, and incomplete or cherry-picked arguments.

This articles subject has demonstrated and established sufficient basic notability, and deserves more respect than to be tied up in endless bureaucratic Wiki-litigation by a few people. If you don't like it, fix it. But keep the article, quit harassing it, and do not re-nominate it for deletion.--Rf68705 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While your comments are useful, there's only one !VOTE each in straw polls here, so I've struck out your multiple !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is promotional. Rf68705 is a single purpose account whose only activity has been in this discussion and the article. I checked the references cited by Rf68705. As he requested, comments are specific.
Ref 12 - Only 3 sentences at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal article are devoted to the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). The article is not about NAGR; NAGR is only mentioned as one of many "splinter groups". Trivial mention of NAGR in this article does not establish notability.
Ref 211 - Four sentences are devoted to NAGR. The article is about opposition to high-capacity magazines, not NAGR. A statement that NAGR disagrees with gun control advocates is not substantial coverage to establish notability of NAGR.
Ref 12 - NAGR is not mentioned in the article. That the director of NAGR was a Republican delegate does not help establish notability of NAGR.
Ref 17 - An NAGR email was reproduced along with a comment in a reporter's column making it a primary source. It is not an article about NAGR.
Ref 21 - The article is about a lawsuit filed by NAGR, not about NAGR. References 1 and 4 are the filing of the same lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit does not help establish notability. Notability requires substantial coverage of NAGR.
Ref 23 - This article reports that NAGR lost its lawsuit (references 1,4 and 21). There is no substantial coverage of NAGR but it does note that NAGR wanted to spend $20,000 to support a Republican candidate.
Ref 24 - NAGR is mentioned once in the middle of the article. There is no coverage of NAGR at all. A mention of supporting a lawsuit does not establish notability.
Ref 26 - NAGR is not mentioned in the source. Saying NAGR threatened to sue is either original research or synthesis not suppored by this source. In no way does this source help establish notability.
Ref 27 (now 28) - The article is about the NRA supporting a Democrat. NAGR is only mentioned once at the end of the article as endorsing a different candidate. A trivial mention does not help establish notability.
Ref's 13, 14, 15 and 19 - That NAGR is mentioned on the web sites of state groups with similar goals does not help establish notability.
Ref's 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 only document contributions my NAGR's PAC as required by law and in no way establish notability of the organization.
When I first saw this AfD, I leaned toward a Weak Support !vote based on the number of reliable sources. After I checked them, I reversed to Delete because the sources did not support notability. To reassure myself, I did an independent search. See here and here and here, among many others. Then I found the Executive Director of NAGR used Wikipedia to help establish his importance here.
Based on all of the above, an article on NAGR does not belong in the encyclopedia at this time. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:38, 26 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, Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep I am no fan, but this is an established and federally registered political action committee. This is a borderline snow keep, isn't it? It's leaders have done countless interviews. I do not understand this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Agree with immediate previous poster. The poster who refuted my reference list did so with subjective biases against most of them essentially claiming because the group was not the majority subject of the articles that notability does not exist. Quite the contrary, when several independent sources across the country pick up on a single groups activities, it demonstrates a brad range of saturation and notability. Additionally, Reference #11 the USA Today was completely ignored in the rebuttal. Finally, posters so-called "research" is entirely based off of discussion form hearsay -- which is the simple result of clicking on on the less credible first page results of a google search. Hardly content notable enough to be considered as evidence in an AfD thread. NAGR was cited by the United States Supreme Court in the McDonald v Chicago case. How much more notable does the group need to meet the almighty standard for Wikipedia? AfD should be closed with the result keep.Rf68705 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Multiple !vote struck out.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Delete. I've done some more research on this, and although there are a significant number of ghits, the organization appears to be a 1-person money-making organization, with little independent recognition or accomplishments. The mentions in google are very minor and incidental; often it is just mentioned in passing. So, although it is a legitimate organization, it is tiny and does not appear to meet WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly new to WP but I believe notability requires significant coverage, not just wide mention and lots of Google hits. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being used to establish the legitimacy of an otherwise non-notable organization, for example here (scroll about half way down to 04-10-2012, 9:06 A). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An IP user has independently expressed concern (also on the talk page of this article) that The article in Wikipedia is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in place so that it isn't created again. -- Trevj (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrap this article, and start over There are two arguments for deletion in this discussion, lack of notability, and excessive promotion. The original nomination, and much of the commentary here has concerned notability, and on that basis I'd weakly advocate keeping the article. However, I am persuaded that there is excessive promotion such that a fundamental rewrite by neutral writers is required. Based on the admittedly vague ip complaint mentioned in the comment above, I investigated further. First, I note that the impressive search engine hits show signs of optimization - there all lots of links on different gun enthusiast forums with the same text, quoting the organization's name and the full name of the executive director. Based on that, since I saw the organization is registered as a public tax exempt organization, I pulled the most recent tax filing I could obtain - 2010. (If you want to search for it yourself, the IRS form is 990, and group's tax id number is 542015951). It shows this organization has a total 8 employees, and 4 board members. Only 1 of the members - the executive director again - works full time. The other 3 work 1 hour a week for the organization. The group reported receipts of around 1.7 million dollars, and spent 1.5 million of that on internet marketing, direct mailing, telemarketing, and donations. The total salary it paid to its employees was about $125,000. Now, I admit, none of these things means that the group should not have an article - it has been mentioned briefly in a couple of reliable sources, and seems to be actively fundraising and advocating its position. However, I decline to stick my head in the sand, and pretend that a group appears to exist almost entirely on the internet and direct marketing fundraising is not trying to use this article as an attempt not just to inform, but as part of the group's fundraising aims. As such, I advocate a clean start, preferably one by writers w/ no affiliation with the group. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION and Xymmax's comments - but allow NPOV re-creation. I did a little research regarding notability and concluded that there are barely enough reliable sources to just qualify WP:CLUB/WP:GNG. However, there is the similarly-named (though AFAIK unrelated) 'National Association for Gun Rights India' which does artificially inflate search engine hits. If I had the time and inclination, I'd offer to attempt a rewrite myself, which would result in an article a fraction the size of the current one. I also feel I'm probably not alone in appreciating the honesty that User:Rf68705 has demonstrated in disclosing his connections to the group. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NOTPROMOTION is the one I meant. Link added. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:32, 30 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, Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD has been outstanding for the better part of a month with no decisive outcome one way or the other. Propose Close No Consensus (I'm not non-admin closing this again). Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - against No Consensus. I don't really agree with that conclusion, but of course I am biased. I think there is consensus that the article should not stay as it is and closing no consensus is essentially the same as a keep. Much of the detailed (and occasionally bordering on bullying) support has been from a single (and single purpose) editor. I think we should finish this, in the very least creating a space for a more appropriate article as described above. heather walls (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, that's unfortunate - WP:RELIST suggests no more than two relists under normal conditions - but ultimately harmless. I too disagree with a preemptive nonconsensus close. I actually think that keep, NC, and delete are all within admin discretion here depending on how the arguments are weighed. Let a closer handle it, that's why we pay them the big bucks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Why is this even here? An organization with 1.8 million members, stated in a legal document. Has sufficient and suitable coverage to meet wp:notability. I Googled for a complete string match for their entire name and got 2.8 million hits. Scanned through the first few hundred of the 2.8 million and every one was a reference to this organization. I also noted that an invalid reason was cited in a large number of the "delete" weigh-ins which was deleting because the article has flaws (too promotional, unbalanced etc.) These are not valid reasons for deleting an article, they are reasons for fixing it. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi there. It's not about how many hits they get (see: WP:GHITS), but the quality of those sources. If you take a look at many of the hits you see, many are from non-reliable sources, non-neutral sources, etc. Or perhaps the organization has a mere mention. I believe that organizations fall into the same notability guidelines as other subjects - just because they have memberships, or are a legal entity doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 2.8 million real listings just as a reinforcement on top of meeting the normal criteria, not in place of it. We have zillions of Wikipedia articles on obscure individual ballplayers, towns with 10 people in them, etc. I find in incredulous that there is even a discussion of possibly deleting coverage of an an organization with 1,800,000 members. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked for 1 minute and found a New York Times article covering a piece of national legislation, and that the National Association for Gun Rights was in conflict with the NRA on it. Well, there's the first minute. I put it in. (the article does need Wikifying) North8000 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked another 1 minute and found a USA Today article ("Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off") with 2 paragraphs from an interview with a National Association for Gun Rights spokesperson. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the USA Today material and reference.North8000 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While you're looking, see if you can independently verify the 1.8 million member number, and you'll be on your way to seeing why some are skeptical. The PDF I linked to above suggests that this "national" organization has 8 employees and 1 full time board member. It's annual budget is equivalent to a local restaurant or medium sized church. I think it's probably notable, but there's a lot of puffery going on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about membership numbers. The 1.8 million members was a clear statement by them in a court document where BS'ing could easily mean jail time. 2.8 million Google hits that look pretty clearly on them is also a strong indication. Also that NY Times and USA Today quoted them for views on national issues, an covered their conflict of view with the NRA is also indicative. And those two articles are what I found in two minutes. This just bolsters that sourcing already in there satisfies wp:notability. The article certainly does need wikifying, but I would find it silly / incredulous for there to no article on them in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

  • Question It's worth pointing out that the tax form above shows revenues increasing by a factor of four from one year to the next. This speaks to me of not of an enduring organisation, but one of the many transient organisations that seem to string up in politics as fronts / spokespeople for various groups. Is there any evidence that this organisation has spanned multiple US electoral cycles? Short-lived organisations would tend to fall into WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that might meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG
Sources that include more than a quote or brief mention in passing
Haberman, Maggie (August 16, 2011). "Pro-gun group says it wants Perry answers". Politico.
"Kendra Marr flags this email from the National Association for Gun Rights, which sounds gleeful about Tim Pawlenty's loss at the Ames Straw Poll and claims it as a victory for the group as it presses for Rick Perry answer where he stands on the Second Amendment."
Youderian, Annie (October 5, 2012). "Gun-Rights Group Takes Aim at Montana Laws". Courthouse News Service.
"The National Association for Gun Rights sued state officials in federal court in Helena, challenging the state's definition and regulation of political committees as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and association."
Associated Press (October 30, 2012). "Judge denies request to bypass disclosure law". Billings Gazette.
"U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen on Monday ruled against Virginia-based National Association for Gun Rights' request for a preliminary injunction, saying the group is asking the court to strike down the state's longstanding disclosure requirements on the eve of an election."
Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include the words "National Association for Gun Rights"
O'Conell, Vanessa (April 19, 2010). "Gun Advocates Open a New Front:Saying NRA Isn't Imaginative, Splinter Groups Seek More Aggressive Tactics". Wall Street Journal.
"But Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, an NRA competitor that has filed paperwork to form its own political action committee, said that wasn't enough, adding that the NRA had been too quick to compromise with gun-control advocates. He pointed to the association's endorsement of a law to check mental-health records in background checks for gun purchases following the killing of 32 people in 2007 by a suicidal gunman at Virginia Tech. "Philosophically, we all agree with the same idea of gun freedom," said Mr. Brown, 44. "The question is strategy."
Jervis, Rick (July 31, 2012). "Gun control advocates target high-capacity magazines". USA TODAY.
"High-capacity magazines are not commonly used by hunters, as most states ban them from hunting reserves, says Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. But gun owners should be allowed to buy them for home protection or in case the government ever turns on its citizens, he says. More important, he says, the magazines are protected under the Second Amendment. "Who determines what 'high-capacity' is?" O'Dell asks. "It's a slippery slope we start walking when we start picking and choosing what rights of the Constitution and Bill of Rights we're going to follow."
Bloomberg News (November 17, 2011). "House Approves Bill Making Travel Easier for Gun Owners". New York Times.
"The bill was also opposed by the National Association for Gun Rights, which said it could become a "Trojan horse for more gun control."
Jervis, Rick; McAuliff, John (July 25, 2012). "Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off". USA TODAY.
"Friday's shootings -- and the threat of greater gun control stemming from them -- are driving people into gun stores, said Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights. Gun owners are also filling up training courses in Colorado, he said. "People take their self-defense seriously in Colorado," he said. "A tragedy like the murders in Aurora is often a catalyst to reminding people they need to be looking out for themselves."
Sandoval, Michael (September 16, 2010). "NRA Set to Endorse Democrat Markey (CO-4)". National Review Online.
"Gardner was endorsed by the National Association for Gun Rights last week."
UPI (November 28, 2011). "Suit over Postal Service gun ban proceeds". upi.com.
"James Manley, an attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation who represents the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights in the suit, said the case could have nationwide implications."
Marcus, Peter (February 3, 2012). "Rival pro-gun groups' explosive relationship triggers political hits". The Colorado Statesman.
"The name that pops up above all others is Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), the largest Colorado-based gun lobby in the state. He is also the executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that serves as an umbrella coordinator for various state-level pro-gun organizations."
Sources that include brief mentions or quotes that include only the words "Dudley Brown"
Hihmann, James. "RNC 2012: Tampa floor fight less likely". Politico.
"Dudley Brown from Colorado was part of the group trying desperately to use the last resort to block it. "If you’re trying to win a presidential campaign and put on a show, you shouldn't poke a sharp stick in the eye of conservative activists," he said."
Sources that do not meet WP:RS for satisfying WP:GNG
Self published.
"Gunrunnners and Gunwalkers". National Association for Gun Rights.
"Rand Paul Fought to Amend Patriot Act". National Association for Gun Rights.
"They Call You A Terrorist". National Association for Gun Rights.
"M1 Rifles An Update About the Obama Scam". National Association for Gun Rights.
"HR 822 Moves to the Senate". National Association for Gun Rights.
"Memorandum HB 1092 - Priola -2/9/12" (PDF). House Judciary Committee Testamony / Handouts. National Association for Gun Rights via Colorado.
"Amicus Brief in McDonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and National Association for Gun Rights". SSRN 1684688. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
A complaint filed in a lawsuit is not WP:RS for anything other than the fact that a complaint was filed (i.e. The complaint does not verify the existence of 1.8 million members).
"VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND NOMINAL DAMAGES in NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, INC., v. JAMES MURRY, et. al" (PDF). National Association for Gun Rights. p. 7.
Group not in source.
"Editorial: The UN Gun Grabber". The Washington Times. May 27, 2010.
"Group Threatens To Sue CSU Over Gun Ban". TheDenverChannel.com. January 26, 2010.
"Colorado State Rescinds Campus Gun Ban After Court Ruling". TheDenverChannel.com. May 5, 2010.
Sources lacking independence from the subject.
"FAQ: WGO works for gun owners, not politicians". Wisconsin Gun Owners.
"Leadership Team". Utah Gun Owners.
"Big win for a first step toward restoring freedom". Wyoming Gun Owners.
"One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights". NAGR via Outdoors International.
"Hearings on Constitutional Carry and Preemption this Thursday". New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc.
Campaign finance.
"Report shows where the money is going in Congressional races". IndyStar.com. February 1, 2012.
Public records.
"Requirements for Exemption". Internal Revenue Service.
"Corporate Data Inquiry". ID 0537656-1: State Corporation Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
"Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed".
"NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS INC PAC". Federal Election Comission.
"Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Montana District 01". Open Secrets.org.
"Top Contributors, 2012 Race: Texas District 36". Open Secrets.org.
"National Assn for Gun Rights Expenditures". Open Secrets.org.
From WP:NRVE...
"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason."
From WP:SIGCOV...
"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
The article fails policy on several accounts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the previous author accuses of being “brief mentions or quotes” is guided by his subjective opinion of what it “Significant coverage” per the wiki guidelines. He had to try and apply that subjective standard to no fewer than TEN sources that independently mention the group in various forms to try and make his argument. Sorry, but that's a tough sell.
Here is another way of looking at the same material the previous poster pointed out in those fancy looking drop down menus…
From WP:SIGCOV...
"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
These mentions ARE more than trivial mentions in the article, but even if YOU think they are not, they still clearly demonstrate a level of saturation enough to establish basic notability.
From Wikipedia:ORG...
“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” Previous poster's second pretty drop-down box is an attempt to discredit sources that are justified by this statement and the ten + sources he subjectively and inaccurately discredited. By the way, just because the other half dozen or so local firearms groups are firearms related does NOT mean they are “lacking independence from the subject.” The dubject is National Association for Gun Rights, not firearms or firearms groups. Most, if not all of those groups existed apart from NAGR and previously affiliated with other national organizations instead. The fact that they now reference NAGR in their works demonstrates they think that NAGR is credible.
From WP:NRVE...
“Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. … In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” This statement is more than satisfied. The sources provided demonstrate an ongoing context through a broad range of coverage relating to multiple works and events.
It's noteworthy to point out that in the process of this AfD thread, proponents for keep (not just me) have essentially rewritten this article. It is not the same article originally nominated. Significant new sources have been added, and it has been made clear that the organizations notability is growing, not shrinking. Despite the increase in notability reference (which cumulatively are more well laid out than, say Gun Owners of America), those advocating for delete haven't touched the content of the article, and have demonstrated nothing more than a predisposition for their position based on hearsay in gun discussion threads.
Wikipedia is here as a comprehensive encyclopedia, if you think something violates NPOV, click the edit tab, and change some words around to address your concerns. North8000 at least had the willingness to improve the article in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. I will likely work on expanding on that today, including a recent article from the Colorado statesman which cited the group as the primary opposition to gun control measures expected in the State of Colorado. These are the kind of building blocks that are needed in a project like Wikipedia.
The article would be better served if the opponents of the organization would address the subject matter by improving the article instead of fighting a flame war over AfD. That would bring the balance the article allegedly needs.
Nevertheless, some will continue to argue that an organization referenced in a US Supreme court decision, by the USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and recognized by more than a half-dozen state groups (actually its more than that)as a national affiliate and with growing political influence isn't notable enough. There isn't going to be any convincing them, and I hope the person making the final decision takes that into account.
Another previous poster argued about the organizations finances. He was wrong, and presented misleading information. In presenting IRS form 990 he presented 2010 but omitted and failed to mention that the organization reported revenue of $3.7 Million in 2011. I do not see any rule where submitting a detailed accounting of a c4's budget is a prerequisite to establishing notability. Even so what is available indicates the group is growing substantially, and for a political organization to double its budget as claimed in the court document (under penalty of perjury) of $5 to $6 Million in an even year (especially a Presidential election year) is not a-typical for most c4's. For those of you who are unfamiliar, 501c4 organizations are not the same as PACs. C4s get into issue discussion and are therefor not subject to FEC "election" reporting guidelines, meaning you are relying at the speed of the IRS to post newer information online. That does not prohibit anyone who has a question from calling the IRS and asking for that information for NAGR's c4. The FEC of-course will continue to release information on PAC's as it becomes available, but that information is cited in the article with respect to NAGR's separate PAC and is growing from prior years.
NAGR has more than a few board members and part time employees, and the Executive vice-president isn't the only full time employee. In fact there are significantly more, not that any of the opponents would know for certain based on information available, but a group that has gone from 1.7 million to 5 million in the last four years... not unheard of for investing in staff. North8000 pointed out Luke O'Dell's is Director of Political Operations. Much like the NRA's La Pierre and Keene, or GOA's Larry Pratt it is quite common for organizations to center one or two people as the public face of their group. The number of paid staff and the level of involvement of groups spokesperson are not valid reasons for an AfD, but if YOU think it is -- the group is growing, not shrinking.
Previous posters have mentioned my admission of connections to the group. That doesn't mean inherently I am not committed to seeing an article worthy of Wikipedia, or that I some how want to see bias or promotion in the article. Quite the contrary. I WANT others to scrutinize it and change it. News flash: Groups care about their image on the web, and the most likely person to create, edit or AfD such an article is the person with a bias one way or another. Imagine if every controversial article has opponents resort to lobbing every Wiki-policy bomb they can find to AfD it. We wouldn't be left with a whole lot of controversial topics. That's why you have the ability to keep them on track as you see fit by editing articles to conform to the standards you so excitedly use to attack it.
Finally... (to end on a lighter note) if NAGR is notable enough for [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/ Chuck Norris to reference], (who is amongst other things, *cough*: an NRA celebrity) it's notable enough for Wikipedia.
Rf68705 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and once you remove all of the chaff from a Google search you'll have less than 30 hits left. The group fails WP:GNG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mention in an article that is about something else is NOT reliable sourcing, no matter how much the above editor wants it to be. Being interviewed about something proves nothing other than you exist. Nothing in any sources is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. The numerous articles cited do a wonderful job of proving the organization exists. Existence does not equal notability. So, my vote is delete as it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This organization isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:08, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important effects of Botulinum Neurotoxins on Central Nervous System

Important effects of Botulinum Neurotoxins on Central Nervous System (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)

Bad article name, too technical for WP, poorly written. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Written like an essay. If anything happens to be worth salvaging, the material should merge to Botulinum toxin. The title is probably not worth keeping as it is not a likely search term. Chris857 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of bankrupt nuclear power plants

List of bankrupt nuclear power plants (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)

One entry... How many are there? Or is this a coatrack? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One entry for now. In the future the list will grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtk (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Power plants, nuclear or otherwise, don't go bankrupt. The companies that own them can. The single entry was shut down, and its owner didn't even go under either. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Kewaunee Power Station. I don't see any value in a list with one entry, and Clarityfiend makes a good point as well (although it's common to talk about stores, sports teams, record labels, movie studios, etc, going bankrupt without distinguishing the owner from the more visible entity - but was this actually shut due to bankrupcy or for non-profitability/cost savings/restructuring?) I'm also suspicious of some of the criteria: "about to be closed" is rather vague and WP:CRYSTALBALL, even "bankrupt" is a bit vague based on the numerous laws worldwide for different types of bankrupcy/bankrupcy protection/winding up/etc, and should it include power stations whose owners go into bankrupcy (etc) but are then bought or restructured and continue operation? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dmtk, your suggestion blatantly fails WP:CRYSTAL. In addition to this, as above, it's a single-entry list, power plants do not go bankrupt, and in any case, this one didn't. Economic closure and bankruptcy are two very different things. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Utterly misleading list title. KTC (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend; power plants don't go bankrupt, companies do, and there's always (if even it's small) a chance Kewaunee will get bought by somebody else. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Human Resource Management, HSS, IIT Kharagpur

Master of Human Resource Management, HSS, IIT Kharagpur (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 apparent notability, no citations from reliable third-party sources —Eustress talk 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 09:17, 10 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. MBisanz talk 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Alemi

Akbar Alemi (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)
(Find sources in farsi: اکبر عالمی )

No reliable sources to support claims, the only one I found seemed to be for a different person(?) Creating the work listing in filmography does not make it notable. I would love to see more references and the article improved. heather walls (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I searched about him via Google, there are some independent Persian sources. Regarding his national (and not international) activity, we can't find any English sources about him and the most are in native language. This is one of the Persian reliable sources. ●Mehran Debate● 08:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a reference and I'm going to add some reliable info in coming days so plz don't delete the article.Soroush90gh (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 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 00:28, 17 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, Vacationnine 00:10, 25 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, MBisanz talk 04:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, some sources have been added but the fact remains that many of them are primary sources (written by the subject) and others simply do not provide "significant coverage" of the subject. Being a guest judge at a film festival is not in and of itself notable. I just can't see how the subject meets WP:GNG or any of the profession-specific criteria, but I'm more than happy to discuss it if others believe otherwise. Stalwart111 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— US Academia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no objection to using non-English sources, but if you want them to be accepted by English-speaking editors on the English Wikipedia you may need to provide translations of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 9 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 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Overtoom

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Overtoom (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)

Person is still not notable, nothing appears to have changed since the last time it was deleted. -FilmOliver —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, November 21, 2012

  • Note I have refactored the above to include the standard AfD templates, transcluded the discussion, and fixed the template on the article. Please leave the time of this comment as the official starting time for the discussion. Monty845 02:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is already kept for speedy for G4 which states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion may be deleted". This article wasn't a copy of the prior version. Mediran talk to me! 12:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Not qualifying for speedy deletion is not a reason for keeping an article. It only means that it should be taken to AFD for a fuller discussion which is what should happen here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the nominator was saying that there were "nothing appears to have changed since the last time it was deleted.". Since it was declined, it means that the article was a modified version prior to that of the first. See this for the declination and please see G4 for more info. Thanks. Mediran Season's greetings! 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't interpret the nomination in the same way you did. I interpret it to mean that Overtoom was deemed to be not notable at the previous AFD, and there has been no change in what Overtoom has done that would indicate he has become notable in the six months since the first AFD. In any case, arguing semantics fails to address the reason for the nomination. Can you please explain how notability is met in this version of the article? -- Whpq (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the first AfD was of course a discussion for the first version, they will base on that and if the article's contexts are insufficient, it may be deleted as per the content of that. In comparison of that of the first, this version has improvement and asserted significance as the subject has been a crew for SpongeBob SquarePants, Family Guy and in The Mighty B!, also for being nominated for Emmys several times. Mediran talk to me! 13:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 30 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, MBisanz talk 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously those aren't linked (they are not required to be) but I'm happy to assume good faith and accept that they say what you say they say. Mine was a weak delete anyway - am now changing to keep on the basis of your efforts. Stalwart111 00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My problem with this bio is that he hasn't actually achieved notability on his own - the article tries very hard to establish notability by association. Being nominated for something is not the same as winning and being recognized for that. The one thing he has done is that film, but the references you found (which I did find when I was looking at the film article itself) is that its only claim to notability is to have placed first at an equally non-notable film festival (Black Point Film Festival). Quite honestly in the whole I just don't see how this adds up to meeting even WP:GNG, let alone WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really want to set a standard of listing every minor independent film maker out there? Or everybody who has ever worked on a TV show? I have hundreds of editing credits to my name (even Emmy award winning shows) but I don't have a wikipedia page, nor would I want one. This isn't IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmoliver (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements showing a meeting of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Per WP:NRVE,it would seem available sources show a meeting of WP:GNG and so, despite the nominator's feeling that this person is insignificant, both article and the project will benefit from further expansion and improvement through regular editing. User:Paul Erik leads the way by showing us just what building a proper encyclopedia is all about[18] Kudos! `Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity Lynn

Chastity Lynn (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)

Previously PRODed bio for a pornographic actress. Textbook fail of WP:PORNBIO, since she has only ever been recognized for a scene, which is explicitly excluded in the guideline. §FreeRangeFrog 04:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 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) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luzviminda Federal Republic

Luzviminda Federal Republic (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)

Article on supposed proposed name for the Philippines. However I cannot seem to find much online on "Luzviminda Federal Republic". The references provided all do not refer to the articles topic. Seems to be largely WP:OR and/or opinion Travelbird (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A separate AfD is certainly not necessary. I am also nominating the following related pages, for the reasons I explain below:
United States of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippine Economy Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippines Social army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. (1) There is no evidence of notability of any of these concepts, either in the references cited or anywhere else that I can find, and (2) the articles are purely promotional. Nearly all of the "references" do not even mention the topic of the article in which it appears, the few that do give no more than a passing mention of the subject, and I have not been able to find any coverage of them at all in any reliable third party source. The whole tenor and character of the articles is promotion of a point of view. Everything suggests that these articles were created to publicise the concepts. One of the articles says "Philippines Social Army (PSA) is a term coined by OFW who led the active blogging and social networking to spread the news..." and these Wikipedia articles seem to be further attempts to "spread the news". Another one of the articles attributes its subject to someone called "Prince Dan We". both occur together as contributors to two blogs, and both appear in various social network sites etc, but I can find no evidence of anything satisfying our reliable sources requirements. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest Nepal

Mount Everest Nepal (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 football club. No evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. They don't have their own stadium. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As article creator, I had assumed the club to be inherently notable having competed in the top division of an independent nation's football league and finished in the runners up spot, as confirmed by RSSSF. For additional sources, given that Palau itself does not have a particularly sizeable online presence, google searching is probably not the best way to look for sources, as they are more likely to be in print. Despite this, there have been a number of articles mentioning the team here:
A couple of these are blogs (although there is nothing in them to suggest that they are unreliable sources), but several are proper websites. I accept that this is a relatively minor team, but they have attracted some online commentary in secondary sources that show no indication of being unreliable, and doubtless there is additional information to be found within Palau print media. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those contain in depth coverage and the only two that mention the team in running text appear to be cut-n-paste copies. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In depth coverage is already provided in the references in the article. The RSSSF pages don't merely mention the team in passing, but provide full results, league standings and top goalscorers for the club for the 2004 season and 2006-07 season of the national league. The links above are intended to show that there has also been a degree of coverage elsewhere. In addition, your initial comment that they do not have their own stadium is irrelevant to this discussion, many small leagues in Oceania and Asia have only one ground or have multiple teams sharing only a couple of grounds due to lack of space, such as Bhutan, Hong Kong, American Samoa, etc. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'national top flight' league impies that there are other football leagues in Palau, which doesn't appear to be the case, since this article discusses how the creation of it's first national soccer league was important to improve it's international standings. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, it merely implies there is no higher league. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 10 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 Nominator withdrawn per WP:WITHDRAWN by Khazar2 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog 04:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Abner Mayaya

Billy Abner Mayaya (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)

Search of Google News, scholar, and books demonstrates no evidence of notability. Article provides only one source, which does not appear to even mention the subject. Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nomination, with apologies. I thought I had searched Google News archives without the subject's middle name; I hadn't. Searching for "Billy Mayaya" turned up a few dozen mentions in the news, and appears to be enough to meet notability requirements. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 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) 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day octalogy

Day octalogy (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 neologism or possible hoax. - MrX 02:51, 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. MBisanz talk 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sélim Djem

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

Apparent self-promotion by a supposed prince. Even if I accept all the forum/homepage type pages as legitmate sources of information, then this guy is simply minor noble from a country which abolished the monarchy 100 years ago and according to a Google search receives no significant third-party media coverage. Travelbird (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - providing an analysis of the subject and this article against WP:GNG is made all the more difficult by the original author's apparent dislike for WP:MOS and most of Wikipedia's other guidelines and policies. The subject is supposed to be a notable journalist but the citation for his journalistic work points to an LinkedIn equivalent with his basic resume, not the interviews in question. He is supposed to be a notable author but I can't see that he has written any books that are on best-seller lists or that have been reviewed by others. Lastly, he is supposed to be notable for the fact that he is a pretender to the Ottoman throne, a claim to notability that has historically not received much support here. Unless someone can find some independent reliable sources to verify any of the claims of notability in the article, I just can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG. Happy for my first instincts to be proven wrong, though, and happy to consider additional sources that I might not have been able to find. Stalwart111 03:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete even if notable and proper sources it would require nuking to the ground and a complete rewriting to bring it to anything close to standards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


........... Good evening,

Since three older imperial princes of the Ottoman dynasty – Naz Osmanoglu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz_Osmanoglu, Aliosman Osmanoglu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCndar_Aliosman and Osman Bayezid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_Osman already appear in Wikipedia, the presence of Sélim Djem on this site sheds a more up to date light on the history and situations of the younger generation of Ottoman imperial princes.

The reason why most of the articles and interviews referenced on Sélim Djem's page are in French and Turkish, is because this page is the translation of the Wikipédia page in French, currently in preparation.

I would be grateful if you would accept to reconsider your decision.

Please feel free to tell me what I more can do to give you full appreciation of my work. Kind Regards, A. Buffon — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCOM Suisse (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consett magazine

Consett magazine (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)

Spam creation for NN local advertising magazine available in one local supermarket Travelbird (talk) 02:38, 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. Per WP:SNOW Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Dalu family killing

Al-Dalu family killing (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 even close to being notable. This isn't a battle in a part of a larger war, it was a single attack in the course of a military operation.  Ryan Vesey 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The event under discussion constituted the largest death toll of any single strike during the entire operation. Significant attention has been given to it — not least because all of the victims were civilian, and also because of serious discussion over the proportionality and appropriateness of Israel's air-strikes and speculation that charges of war crimes can come from it against Israel. This is very much a notable subject, and, having in light that even attacks on Israelis that result in no casualties have gained entries, I don't know why a much bloodier event should be given less consideration on Wikipedia. Considering that, even though every single of his objections apply to the Tel Aviv bus bombing (to say nothing of his entirely arbitrary claim that the al-Dalu massacre isn't notable), the nominator nonetheless doesn't think that entry should be removed. I don't know why that of al-Dalu should be. Guinsberg (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tel-Aviv bus bombing was a terrorist attack. This was a military airstrike. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What of it? They were both part of ongoing military operations, both aimed at civilians and both strikes may as well contitute war crimes. That one attack aimed a bus and the other was launched from a jet, in no way makes one less notable than the other, and, considering the vastly greater number of casualties resulting from the air-strike on the al-Dalu family home, I'd argue the latter event is far more notable. Guinsberg (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guinsberg, I find it somewhat amusing that you've recently voted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing based on the reasoning of Sepsis II, who wrote "This attack was a small part of the larger hostilities, to make articles for each of the individual attacks that made up the conflict is ridiculous. We do not need this article or any other articles such as one on the bombing of the Dalu family being made as these events are already covered in great enough detail, and linked to all apposite references, in the proper article already." Marokwitz (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Neutral - seems ostensibly to be a WP:COATRACK for one particular view of one particular incident in a much wider conflict. That there happens to have been some verifiable alternate take (the NYT comments) of that incident does not make the incident notable, nor the article encyclopaedic. The current version is full of POV statements that aren't verified by reliable sources though that is very much a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Either source them or remove them. I'm not convinced this couldn't be covered elsewhere but I'm not so convinced it shouldn't have an article that my position is a strong one. I'm not excited about the immediate jump to WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, though I understand it is inevitable in this particular context - it's difficult to claim neutrality while keeping one article and deleting something some will see as a counterpart equivalent. While AFD does not exist to prompt clean-up, I think in this instance a good clean with the NPOV brush would allow editors to make a more informed decision. Stalwart111 03:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is in need of sources? The article is well-sourced and the changing positions of all involved in the incident - the Israeli army and the family - are registered throughout the article. I don't think it is either lacking in RS nor ignoring different takes on the event. Guinsberg (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay;
  • Well, we should probably have a source for the claim, "The family has no known conections to Gazan militant groups" (sic), given this directly contradicts the claim by those who launched the strike. Known by who? There is a source confirming a claim they did (regardless of how accurate that claim might be) and no source to say they didn't, yet we include a statement that they didn't. That's obviously problematic.
  • Equally, the following section starts with, "During the engagement in Gaza, the IDF alleged that it fired warning shots over residential areas so as to allow civilians to flee their homes before Israel's air-strikes", which is also un-sourced. That might be amongst the sources provided, but I couldn't find it and it seems like something we should have a source for. There is a source for the following line (the same source which a later section of the article is specifically critical of).
  • In the space of a few paragraphs we go from quoting a supposedly reliable source to quoting a counter-argumentative source that claims it isn't a reliable source at all. That's seems contradictory at best but it's a contradiction not supported by more than a solitary source.
  • The criticism of the NYT author is in an of itself problematic (I think). It's based on one opinion-editorial that ties the journalist's story to some related tweets. But the source in question (which we use as a reliable source, as I noted above) actually ties those comments to quotes from a local who said, "We got used to it; we got used to the killing", which is essentially what the journalist repeated anyway. That's not to say there shouldn't be some criticism (and there has been) but giving it a section of its own while at the same time not taking it into account when citing sources ourselves seems a bit strange to me.
Like I said, many of these are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sorts of problems but they are the very basis of the article, so unless they can be fixed, the whole premise of the article starts to look tenuous. If you start cutting arguably unreliable sources or un-sourced claims then you end up with something that might start running into WP:NOTNEWS trouble. I'm changing my !vote to neutral, though, in light of the fact that there's obviously more discussion to be had and many of the criticisms I have aren't really enough to support even a weak delete opinion yet. I'm happy to discuss it and I'll add a !vote later. Stalwart111 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons given by Guinsberg (less the editorializing). The article has reliable sources and reasonably broad coverage. It meets general notability. - MrX 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. All you did was to remove the NYT controversy section. Coming from someone who had said the article was "laughingly POV", I expected less lame additions. Guinsberg (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by far the most notable event of the war apart from the assassination of Jaabari. There is already speculations that the case might be brought against Israel in international fora, the notability of the event extends beyond the war itself. --Soman (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think those arguing to keep the article have sufficiently made their points. This can be closed if anybody wants. Ryan Vesey 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the basic question is notability, and we can check this by finding sources which relate to this incident more than a couple of weeks after the operation. If there are then it stays, if no, then we should delete/merge it per WP:NOTNEWS.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are we also to delete the dozens of equally (or less) notable articles about suicide bomb attacks and other widely publicized specific killings in Israel-Palestine? I don't think so. CarolMooreDC 22:51, 8 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) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Rodrigue

Mitch Rodrigue (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 university assistant coach. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia entry. - MrX 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This coach is an assistant coach at the highest level of college football. He can be considered as being at the pinnacle of his profession. Not everyone coaches in NFL or becomes a head coach. Many well-respected football coaches you hear constantly named on ESPN have stayed as assistants at the college level. You would have to remove many names from Wikipedia if you eliminated assistant college coaches. Some examples I found on a 5 minute search include - Craig Stump–Texas State, Chad Glasgow–Texas State, Don Shows–Northwestern Louisiana, Curtis Luper–Stephen F Austin, Mike Nesbitt-McNeese St, Ronnie Thompson-Lamar to name a few. As an assistant college coach, your responsibilities include helping to win games, developing players for the NFL and recruiting players to your University. The following links show he has developed players for NFL and was listed by Rivals.com as the No. 6 recruiter in nation. Rivals is considered one of the most respected sources of information concerning college football recruiting. Southern Mississippi bio, USA Jaguars bio], Louisiana-Lafayette bio. The information in the links could be added to make the article seem less resume like, but may lose some of its neutrality. User:Spatms (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable assistant college football coach. While WikiProject College football supports a presumption of notability for all head coaches in Division I, the project does not support a similar presumption in favor of assistant coaches. The applicable specific notability guideline is WP:NCOLLATH, which mentions four specific criteria: (1) won a national award; (2) established a major Division I record (not really applicable to assistants); (3) inducted into the hall of fame for their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame); or (4) "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." The first three do not apply to the article subject, and the fourth apparently ties into the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and this subject does not have sufficient depth of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I would suggest merging the information into the team article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 9 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) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Health Plan Philippines, Inc.

Health Plan Philippines, Inc. (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 HMO. Prod was removed. Qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but nominations were persistently removed. —teb728 t c 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 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 pageor in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Winter

Elle 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)

NN gameshow contestant. Likely self- or friend-promotion Travelbird (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There's a little bit of coverage, including this interview, but nothing significant enough to make her notable enough for an article. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I just nominated it for CSD:A7, as there is no credible claim as to the significance of the subject. - MrX 04:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In case this doesn't get speedied, I want to voice my vote to delete. She's not independently notable of the show and if we had an article on the actual RD contest I'd vote for it to be redirected, but we don't seem to have an article for the show at this point in time. It looks like it'd be notable enough, so I'll see what I can bang out fast and dirty.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Radio Disney's The Next BIG Thing. I've thrown together a very, very quick article about the Radio Disney show. There are a lot of articles about it, but it's rather hard to find a lot of the basics. Season one seemed to fly under the radar for the most part, so it's hard to find anything that talks about who won it or when exactly the seasons start. It's notable enough for the most part, but it definitely needs work from an editor that's more familiar with the show than I am. In any case, Miss Winter is not yet notable enough outside of the show to merit her own article and until the point comes where she can merit her own entry, she should be redirected to the main article for the show.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 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) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hille

Elisabeth Hille (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)

NN personality. Didn't even make it to the final round of a tournament Travelbird (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, she's not retired. She'll play future tournaments. UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. And if she becomes notable for something else in the WP:Future, then I would support an article at that time.  Gongshow Talk 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 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) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Francks

Lili Francks (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)

An actress who has had a fair number of roles, but nothing significant enough to garner her media attention or satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I agree that the career has not been notable when looking at film or television roles, I did find multiple independent articles about stage performances. She may qualify under WP:ENT condition that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". For instance, she recently performed in the "Golden Dragon" in Toronto that received coverage in National Post, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star and was nominated for Best Ensemble at the Dora Awards (apparently a thing). Prior to that she was in Goodness by Michael Redhill (which judging by the extensive coverage would probably pas notable if the play had an article about it) for a number of years. I'm leaning toward Delete, because few mentions rise above trivial mentions in reviews and because as nom "a fair number of roles, but nothing significant enough to garner her media attention". But just think we need to think about whether she gets the career exception by being in a fair number of roles. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since yesterday, looked at every article that mentioned her in a couple databases (going back to 1992) and mentions were either trivial or inherited (related to her daughter). Nominator summarized the position excellently: Fair number of roles, but nothing that got subject coverage about the actress. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 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) 15:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block Party (album)

Block Party (album) (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)

Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". This album is a poster child for the reasoning behind that guideline. It has a section labeled "confirmed tracks", but that section is sourced to a fansite on blogspot.com. There's a section labeled "unconfirmed tracks" (bad enough in and of itself), and that section is sourced to four year old rumours with no demonstrable relevance to any current plans. The questionable information in this article even includes the statement that it probably won't be released under this title: "In February 2012, Missy Elliott announced on Twitter that the album would most likely not be named 'Block Party'". Of course, that quote is nearly a year old and no album has yet been confirmed, so who knows if it has any relationship to reality. This article has been around for over five years, and it is still impossible to write an article that satisfies WP:V's mandate that we "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". —Kww(talk) 01:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 08:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GBG MMA

GBG MMA (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)

An article with no independent sources about an MMA team whose members apparently have not won any championships in even second tier promotions (see WP:MMANOT). Even if they had, notability is not inherited and my search turned up no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - purely local.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:59, 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 redirect to London Assembly election, 2012. MBisanz talk 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Labour Party Members of the London Assembly

List of Labour Party Members of the London Assembly (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 is badly out of date (the list is from the 2004 election and Ken Livingstone has not been mayor since May 2008). It has been marked as an orphan for a considerable period of time and there are no equivalent lists of members from other parties. London Assembly election, 2012 does the job fine. DavidCane (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the subject is adequately covered by London Assembly and the articles, linked from it for the elections to it. I would vote the same if this were a similar article on Tory or Liberal Democrat members. The article has clearly not been maintained for a long time. Articles that need to be maintained are generally undesirable, because they do go out of date. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 8 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 that the article doesn't meet the appropriate SNG j⚛e deckertalk 06:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lagman

Daniel Lagman (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)

Article about a non-notable MMA fighter. He currently has no fights for a top tier MMA promotion, easily failing WP:MMANOT. He seems to have potential, but assuming he'll meet the necessary criteria is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 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. j⚛e deckertalk 06:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 559 Fights events

List of 559 Fights events (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)

List of events for local MMA promotion. The organization's website is the only source. No claims of notability are made or shown. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. the parent article of the organization appears to already have been deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 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. The consensus and the only reasonable solute is delete. This is covered sufficiently in the main article. The comparison with Gandhi shows the inappropriateness of this article. DGG ( talk ) 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Bal Thackeray

Death of Bal Thackeray (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 reason this should have been split from the main article. He died, nothing significant to make the death notable, coverage within reasonable expectations for politicians such as him. —SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His death is quite notable. over 2,000,000 people mourn over his death. ( see Bal Thackeray#Reactions) There was city bandh in mourn of death of Balasaheb Thackeray. and see the article Superstar rajnikanth wrote Sri Bala Saab Thackrey was a great leader & a father figure to many, including me....this is a great loss to all.... (see Bal Thackeray) so i vote for keep Forgot to put name (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability for following reasons and more (1) Record numbers of mourners: two million (2) complete peaceful closure of city for two -three days (3) Arrests related to death (4)unprecedented obituary in both Houses of Parliament (5) Unique public funeral Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A record 7 km long cortège. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or rename, see comments below. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bal Thackeray. Delete, changed per my response to SpacemanSpiff immediately below. No need to fork this and no need to pander to the usual Hindutva pov pushing. The guy was notable and his death is a part of his life, if you get what I mean. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I looked at the history and saw a fair few entries. I also noticed a familiar style of excessive quoting etc. However, having now reviewed Bal Thackeray, yes, you are correct. I have changed to delete above. And, boy, does the original article need some TLC. - Sitush (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, a redirect would be the quick solution, I guess. That probably could have been boldly done but given the controversial nature of Thackeray and also the identity of one of the main contributors, you've done the right thing in being circumspect. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's your POV and you are entitled to hold it. It isn't mine - I have no time for what I perceive to be his racism etc - but in any event, Wikipedia is supposed to present things neutrally and with due weight. While there may be the odd exception, and an assassination of a head of state such as JFK would fit that bill, as a general rule a person's death is treated in the article concerning their life. Thackeray died of natural causes - nothing "special". He died, we say that in the article about him and that's the end of the matter. That a lot of people turned up to his funeral is, well, very nice for his family I am sure, but it is not something that warrants a separate article. The founding of the party and his "great contributions" (sic) etc are correctly covered as part of his life (and elsewhere, at Shiv Sena, for example). It doesn't need another outlet, least of all one that is effectively likely to be a hagiography. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The is not about the title, it is about what constitutes normal practice, due weight and neutrality etc. Changing the title will not make the articles any more valid per se. As for peaceful, when a mob of Shiv Sena bully boys supporters descend on various places in relation to Facebook comment, there are accusations that people were stunned with fear and the commissioner of police asked people to stay indoors, well,your definition differs from mine! - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That incident is apart from the 7 km cortege that had over two million mourners, does anyone allude that the mourners were coerced, let us have evidence. The arrests also makes the incident more notable which I've mentioned. Being unhappy with the politics of Shiv Sena or Thackeray must not make any incident non-notable, one of the largest conglomeration of humans ever. Perhaps Thackeray's death is routine, well everyone has to die one day, however the funeral is quite notable, not many humans ever had one like that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) talk 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the ancient Egyptians had some pretty good ones that lasted for months and ended with the ritual sacrifice of slaves and soldiers for burial in purpose-built tombs that remained the largest buildings on Earth for the better part of 2000 years. And? None of that really explains why this can't be covered in his biography? There's no length limit and it was previously well-covered until the details were removed in favour of the subject article, presumably to make a point or something. Any reason this needs its own article? Other than that someone wants some sort of memorial? Stalwart111 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Well wouldn't mentioning all the notable incidents related to a person's death make the article unbalanced, (as an example) 50 lines for the 86 years he lived, and 100 for his funeral. (2) If anyone has enough information about those Egyptian funerals and there aren't articles about them, such articles ought to be created. Yogesh Khandke (talk)
  • (1) The version I saw of Bal Thackeray covered the funeral fairly comprehensively (at least compared to the original version of this article) and I couldn't see justification for a WP:CONTENTFORK for the funeral alone. I still can't.
(2) My point about the Egyptian funerals was that it is a matter of historical record that they were significant but we don't have content forks for those. I don't think anyone is suggesting the funeral (in this case) was not significant - I see it as mostly a stylistic preference for a content fork or not. I don't think it needs one, you think it does. The need for one had not been properly substantiated and so it was nominated for deletion. I still can't see why a content fork is necessary, except in the case that someone would want to memorialise the subject with an article that covers the most minute of trivial details about the funeral itself, with reference to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. You are obviously free to disagree (as you seem to do) - that's the fun of consensus building. Stalwart111 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) My basis in wp:EVENT, one of the biggest, longest ever; I am happy with any consensus that emerges, my comments are made because in my opinion the opposition is addressing a straw man argument, it is as I perceive based on dislike of tne man's politics. (2) One example is of stand alone notability is the funeral site that continues to grab centre stage because of the "memorial" controversy at the site of the cremation, my question is do you wish all that is included in the main article? That itself is notable enough for an article such as Bal Thackeray memorial controversy Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete this. There are no size constraints and the article isnt going to grow as hes not generating anything new to add. Seems to be started just cause others have pages as such. (which in other cases is due to size)Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment people saying keep the article (all of thm) are doing so on the premise of it being greatly notable. That is NOT the question here, it is notable (and even some deletion/merge comments agree), it just doesnt need to be split into another article. All/most content can and will be kepy, on his page.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearly all" of the material better had not be kept if it is merged. You've cut a perfectly reasonable summary from the thing today and are now proposing to overload it with a swathe of ridiculous sentiment and POV-driven over-reaction? I know that this is one for Talk:Bal Thackeray but, really ...? - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a comment on the events or their coverage by Wikipedia? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OED: obtuse. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Now may we have the answer? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:23, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring diabetes

List of films featuring diabetes (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)

There isn't significant coverage of the topic in sources; there seems to be only one academic article about the subject. While it may be an interesting list, it simply isn't notable. See also, Afd: List of films featuring home invasions. – Zntrip 05:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Diabetes is not a notable film genre.--xanchester (t) 06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This stand-alone list is not attempting to be a list of films in a particular genre. It is a list of films with content in common. Film genres and film content can overlap (like with home invasions), but they can also be mutually exclusive. This list is based on references outside of Wikipedia, so this is not a topic that is exclusive to Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how featuring diabetes is a notable attribute of films. JIP | Talk 06:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & above comments. Seems to be listcruft. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may not be as common a plot element in films as, say horse racing, insanity, parenthood, crime solving, combat, or shipwrecks, but it does not have to be the most common thing. It was clearly used a a major plot element in the listed films to provide some reason for urgency, as in Panic Room, or a sly way to kill someone, as in ones where the insulin is adulterated. Such lists and categories are an appropriate way to organize the coverage of films in the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it may make sense to have articles on genres/subgenres, such as the home invasion film, and on prominent themes such as homosexuality in cinema or maybe the representation of illness in film, if they are discussed in academic film studies publications or by multiple serious critics, I can't see enough coverage on diabetes in film for it to be a notable topic. There's a lot of lists of films published with different connections or common features, but just because a movie magazine/website does a "top ten films featuring X", we don't need to have an article on it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Just because a movie magazine/website does a 'top ten films featuring X', we don't need to have an article on it." Why not? Such a list is clearly a reliable source that can be used, and if we have more than one list, there is precedent in the world outside of Wikipedia for a list in it. I understand that this is a topic of marginal notability, but it still has basis in reality. I referenced the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists below, and it is not quite similar to notability expectations of a prose article. (As I mentioned, I do not think there is enough content for a prose article about this topic, but there is enough for a list.) Erik (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable list. (Note: I am the creator of this article.) We have three references explicitly about diabetes in film. Two references list how diabetes has appeared in film, so this shows relevance outside Wikipedia. The academic article obviously cites many examples of diabetes in film for its topic. I do not think there is enough content out there for a Diabetes in film prose article, but there is enough content here for a stand-alone list. According to the guidelines for stand-alone lists, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The last sentence is also what justifies reference #9. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on my original comments, the nominator says the list is not notable. This is not true, as I referenced the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists above. The sources used in the article justify such a list, so unless their reliability is disputed, there is a claim to notability. In addition, the nominator implies that we need more academic articles for this topic to be notable, and this is not true either. We need reliable sources, and we have them already that list films in this manner. I would also note that among the three major references, there is overlap in film titles. Some films like Steel Magnolias are mentioned in all three lists. I understand that the notability is relatively marginal, but per the five pillars, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wikipedia is not intended to be a source of original and previously unpublished content, but that is not the case here. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of films featuring diseases. Diabetes isn't notable enough for a list of its own, but it's another story when you throw in cancer, ebola, alien diseases, Huntingdon's chorea, etc. (The Pride of the Yankees, The Andromeda Strain and Brian's Song would fit in well.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be neat to see lists of films featuring each of these, especially cancer. (I created this particular article while working on Panic Room.) Still, I think it would be more palatable to have individual lists depending on available references. Maybe there could be a mix of both? List of films featuring diseases could both link to stand-alone lists about specific diseases and also have embedded lists if a particular disease is not referenced (per WP:NOTESAL)? Erik (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added this, which is a reliable source because it has the editorial oversight of the periodical Diabetes Health. This helps provide context for the relevance of this stand-alone list. As I said above, a source does not have to be "academic" to indicate notability. This is clearly a topic of minor—not nonexistent—note. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that this is a slippery slope given how many diseases there are, but diabetes is easily in the top 5 most common diseases (in developing countries). Also the number of films produced is (still currently) manageable, if it was books it would be too indiscriminate (over 100x the number of books to films). I think an article on "films featuring disease" is a great idea, if it's delineated in the top 5 or 10 diseases, and perhaps some consideration about fiction vs documentary since documentaries may be too indiscriminate, except for certain ones (difficult line to draw). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the sources provided by Erik in the article. It meets the Wikipedia criteria for Stand-alone Lists as a referenced unified topic. (I also like Clarityfriend's and Erik's ideas for the possibility of expanding the topic to include other well-represented diseases: creating a general List of films featuring physical diseases. I see that there is already a List of films featuring mental illness, although it definitely needs some citations.) — CactusWriter (talk) 19:33, 30 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 (public) talk 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I like the idea of renaming the article to List of films featuring physical diseases as complementary to List of films featuring mental illness with a sub-section on diabetes. Physical afflictions are a common sub-plot in many films and there's easily room to include other illnesses. Off the top of my head, asthma especially could do with a sub-section - Le Chiffre in Casino Royale and Morgan Hess in Signs, etc. It does have the potential to become an WP:OR golem so we'd need to be careful of that. Stalwart111 01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim. Our established practice is to include only the ones where the plot element is import, such as Reversal of Fortune or This Old Cub.Some, like Soul Food (film) seem borderline, but many in the list do not belong there. There are many other such disease as a central plot element, and we should list them separately. We could put them as a section in one very big list, but I do not see how that would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMany of these films aren't "featuring" diabetes, diabetes is merely mentioned. If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop? As has been mentioned, a page featuring films for "diseases" with some sort of limitation on what diseases, would be a useful page and a lot more workable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "If we had pages for films that mention any concept, where would be stop?" This is where policies and guidelines can be referenced. WP:NOTESAL says, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We have references where the list topic is discussed as a group or set. That is our guiding star. We are not going to have articles like "List of films featuring pencils" because there just are not sources that do that, unlike here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we have only one solidly reliable source: Ferguson's "The Cinema of Control: On Diabetic Excess and Illness in Film". The other sources do not speak to notability. Aside from Ferguson, the only talk of diabetes in film are from diabetes advocacy groups (which literally cover all aspects of diabetes) and a blog that publishes a myriad of silly film lists (i.e. 10 Monster Weddings). – Zntrip 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying the other sources are not reliable? Assuming they are considered reliable, then per the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, they absolutely qualify in supporting the list topic. If the sources' reliability is questionable, let's review them. We have one from dLife which is an established media network; this shows plenty of background that demonstrates its credibility. In addition, indieWire is not just a blog; it has been referenced in many film articles with its reliability never questioned. The "monster weddings" link is a strawman; indieWire has hosted all kinds of interviews and analyses. I've already covered Diabetes Health above as a published periodical in circulation. It is clear that this is a topic of narrow scope but the interest is definitely there, as reflected by these sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is yet another source that talks about diabetes in films. I find it reliable because there are medical professionals who analyze some of the films (all of which are already included in the list). EDIT: I think we could have a decent number of paragraphs above this list, combining this new source with the others. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erik and DGG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs trimming, but I believe that the representation of diabetes in film is likely a notable, sourceable topic - as noted above there is at least one good academic source available. Claritas § 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valuable resource appropriate for wikipedia. Etobgirl (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - the notable subject argued for is "(Portrayal of) Diabetes in film" - I doubt any of the sources actually attempt to list all films that feature diabetes. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, diabetes is very uncommon to see in films. Dr. Ferguson (the academic reference in this article) said so himself, and his article named the majority of the titles already listed. Whatever titles that do not have a footnote to him are just other references being used instead (so there is not excessive footnoting). So this list is not that likely to grow much longer, really. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:51, 10 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. MBisanz talk 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Displaced Serbs

Save Displaced Serbs (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:ORG: I found various listings in directories &c., and a couple of mentions in forums, but no deep coverage. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference: A link to the organisation's own website. If you could try to reply to the actual problem, that would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 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 (public) talk 00:08, 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. MBisanz talk 21:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangiers International

Tangiers International (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)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are barely relevant to the subject of the article, and do not provide in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The references provided in the article are diverse and they are from Independent Reliable Sources. Although the company gets only a few paragraphs in each of the reports, this may add up to significant enough coverage for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This company is notable for providing medical services to Westerners worldwide. The references appear to be independent and reliable, thus supporting WP:COMPANY. I vote to keep. CastleKing1440 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I find it curious that a brand new editor who has only made minor edits before would vote on this article. A previously deleted version of this article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet user User_talk:Jetijonez#Proposed_deletion_of_Tangiers_International. Also, I've noticed that someone is offering money to get this article published [20]. I wonder if you have some affiliation with a blocked user or if you have some financial interest in getting this article published. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, this account has now been blocked for sockpuppetry after a checkuser. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Yes, strike out the comments from the paid sock puppet. Qworty (talk) 01:34, 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, Go Phightins! 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient coverage from secondary sources. Depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep company is a notable company in Malta as per the coverage from the Malta Independent, which is the one of two prime newspapers in Malta
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-08-02/news/malta-based-company-probing-war-contractor-injuries-for-aig-under-scrutiny-228610/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TalentedMan (talk • contribs)

Comment Having read that article, I don't think it contributes much to notability. It talks about something one of the company's employees (allegedly) did, and an apparently inconclusive investigation. That doesn't make the company itself notable. Nor does asserting "the company is notable in Malta" a la WP:ITSNOTABLE. Finally, I would like to point out that TalentedMan is another brand new editor who has only made minor edits before--just like the blocked sock above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-This article talk was to discuss notability, in which I provided a link from the Malta Independent. I object to your sock puppet reference just because Im a new editor- the point is discussion, not finger pointed. Good day-TalentedMan (talk) 19:04, 2 December 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 (public) talk 00:07, 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) -- Cheers, Riley 01:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Snyder

Maria Snyder (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)

Extensive totally promotional article, but unfortunately none of the references support any of the stated facts or establish notability. No articles link to this subject. The Eco stuff leads to citations of her participating in conferences, and her characters being chosen for a charity promotion, but no editorial content establishing notability - sorry. It needs a total rewrite with actual references to live on WP - they might exist but I don't find them in a google search. NYTimes does mention that she graced a runway long ago, but that's about it. Fails WP:ANYBIO miserably. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be subtantively rewritten, as I agree it is very promotional, even in the lede. But I think she has a big enough profile to keep a wiki article - there are articles written about her in NY Times and Huffington Post for instance, and has been noted for her eco-fashion work. thedropsoffire|talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 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 00:10, 26 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 (public) talk 00:05, 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zech Zinicola

Zech Zinicola (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. PROD removed with, as usual, no rationale. AutomaticStrikeout 02:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Kinston Eagle is de-PRODing every article, including some that should absolutely be deleted without an AfD, some of the de-PRODs are appropriate. The articles themselves presented here are in poor shape, and as far as I can tell all these "Delete - not notable" votes are made solely by looking at the sparse pages and not the coverage the subject has received. GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple publications independent of the subject. Zincola has that, as I'm only presenting the best results of the first couple pages of a Google News Archive search.[21][22][23][24][25][26] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 19 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, MBisanz talk 01:57, 26 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 (public) talk 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may fail WP:NBASEBALL, but it clearly passes WP:GNG from the sources above, which is more than enough for an article. Not sure why it was relisted again, since there are only 2 delete votes that expand on a "not notable" vote, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, question why this has been relisted once again. There were two votes that made arguments for keep, and one delete vote that went into zero detail and was yet another stock response. I'm not sure what the closing admin is trying to accomplish, but I think consensus has been reached since the arguments for deletion vary from weak to just saying, "Non-notable". Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muboshgu's expansion of the article, which includes sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow Talk 05:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Subject meets the technical threshold of WP:GNG, as demonstrated by Muboshgu. That having been said, the subject's notability is marginal, and I would gladly vote to merge the article to one of our lists of minor league ball players if such an option were presently available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Comment I can't believe people are voting to keep this based on a PED suspension and a couple minor stories about the player being promoted between leagues, which happens hundreds if not thousands of times per year. If this player passes WP:GNG, then 98% of minor league players, managers, and coaches pass WP:GNG, including dozens of players whose most noteworthy "achievement" was being suspended for PEDs. These Baseball AfDs are becoming grudge matches rather than places of consistent voting and policy. Some of the same people voting Keep here have, just within the past few weeks, voted Delete on articles with far more citations. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:22, 9 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 merge to Ice hockey in Australia. MBisanz talk 21:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Junior Ice Hockey League

Australian Junior Ice Hockey League (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)

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. this is an under 20 competition for ice hockey which is amateur and has very low following in Australia. reflected by nothing in gnews or trove. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment no extensive third party coverage, fails WP:GNG, that is the main claim for deletion, the one source provided is far from reliable. note none of the keep votes provide any evidence of significant coverage. I'll happily withdraw if people can provide significant coverage in multiple recognised news sources. it's not even a national league, just 2 states represented. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The GNG wasn't any sort of claim for deletion you proposed, two days before. That being said, your claim that a league can't be national if only two states are represented demonstrates ignorance of Australia, a sparsely populated, heavily urbanized country with more than a third of its population resident in the two cities in question, and which only has six states. (By that token, do you think the National Hockey League is not "national," given that its American teams only cover 17 of the United States' 50 states, a lower percentage than this league does? Ravenswing 06:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

national hockey league gets lots of coverage. [27] you have failed to provide any sources for this non notable competition. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
its not even national, only 2 states are represented. only one source is used which is a blog made up of volunteer contributors . LibStar (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless that Hewitt Sports Network is a blog setup run by volunteers it still gives the best coverage of the three national leagues in Australia (men's, women's and junior)and is accurate and riable in its coverage. Also the fact that only two states are represented does not stop the league from being the national league as argued in Ravenswing's comment. Salavat (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual significant coverage not just one blog. Still waiting... LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being a new league is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nom has failed to proffer a valid ground for deletion. A sports league does not become non-notable because it is about hockey, represents amateur competition, is U-20, or is situated in Australia. It's also not unreasonable that a league established a bare two months ago has not - yet - established a sizeable following, which in any event is likewise not a valid ground to delete. How the article fails WP:SPORTSEVENT - when that criterion doesn't remotely apply to the subject - I have no idea, and perhaps the nom could explain his reasoning, given that SPORTSEVENT refers to single games or short series between two teams. Ravenswing 23:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable to me. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources WP:GNG. Just being"national" does not make something notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whilst article improvement is always welcomed, the sources added do not establish notability:
    • [28] which is published by hockey fansOn the Fly Hockey sees itself as a hockey site for the fans, by the fans.On the Fly Hockey was born in late 2010 as a personal Australian ice hockey blog for Founder Andrew Macdougall thus primary source.
    • [29] which purely a games result by a primary source and says nothing about the junior league as it refers only to the senior team.
      • The pointstreak references there are solely used to reference the arena's the teams play in. References are for both junior teams and have nothing to do with the senior team. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • [30] is a blog and not a strong source as per WP:SPS.

LibStar (talk) 23:47, 2 December 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 (public) talk 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being an Aussie, for a "national" competition to only get 4 teams, in just two cities, even for what is a minority sport here, really hardly counts for a league. I checked the Australia National Ice Hockey Wikipedia page, and there is nothing on that that refers to this league. The references are not notable. Possibly this could be a mention on the main Ice Hockey's page, and then get its own page when proper references become available??. Despite all this, it *is* an official league sanctioned by Ice_Hockey_Australia, according to their website http://www.iha.org.au/view/iha/news-story-archives/news_57760 (thought there is little else on the site about it). Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the correct name should be Melbourne Sydney under 20 amateur ice hockey league. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, or the East Coast Under 20 amateur Ice Hockey League or something? IHA have both separate Junior and Youth teams (competitions), so yes it is a bit confusing.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The correct name is Australian Junior Ice Hockey League. It is not a made up name for the league as your comments seem to be suggesting. The seperate Junior and Youth competitions you mention are State represented tournaments held once a year, they are not leagues like the AJIHL. Salavat (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps a merge and redirect to Ice Hockey Australia would be beneficial here. If the league stands the test of time and gains some better coverage, it can be broken back out as a stand-alone in the future. The season article for 2012-13, on the other hand... Resolute 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ice hockey in Australia. The league, as of right now, does not quite meet the level of significant coverage that I'd like to see, especially for a stand alone article where reasonable merge targets exist. Besides a few brief formation notices there really is nothing that qualifies as anything but passing or routine coverage. However, as the national junior league it does have some inherent notability, but that inherent notability is not enough to justify its own page at the this point in time. Also agree that the season article is overkill to the extreme. If we can't agree on the notability of the league, surely the season itself can't be notable. Ravendrop 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ice hockey in Australia per the above. There's nothing to demonstrate that this new amateur sporting competition is notable, and ice hockey is a seriously obscure sport in Australia so it's not safe to assume that significant coverage in independent sources with be forthcoming anytime soon. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 8 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 Scientific Research Publishing. MBisanz talk 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Science (journal)

Natural Science (journal) (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)

Rather new journal, published by a controversial publisher (see Scientific Research Publishing). On its homepage www.scirp.org/Journal/Indexing.aspx?JournalID=69[predatory publisher], there is a long list of indexes that purportedly cover this journal. However, they don't really seem to know what "coverage" means, given that they seem to think that the Web of Science "covers" this journal (it doesn't, it just lists citations to this journal from journals that are covered). Some databases are mentioned in the journal, but contrary to what is mentioned in the article, these are not very selective and they are not the "major databases" intended by WP:NJournals. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP DELETE and REDIRECT This is a well indexed and notable journal. This journal is cited repeatedly in various other documents including other journals. But does not meet WP:Journal per David Eppstein's reasons below.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Scientific Research Publishing for most of the same reasons I already gave at the AfD for another journal by the same publisher, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science. We do not have evidence (in the form of indexing in selective third-party indices, as opposed to the take-all-comers ones) that this is a notable or significant journal. And we do have evidence (given on the publisher's article) that the publisher is a predatory one that has engaged in scientific misconduct including copying papers inappropriately from other journals and failing to conduct proper peer review. The lack of evidence for the quality of this particular journal presents us with a neutrality dilemma: we can't accuse it of being one of the bad ones without evidence but on the other hand we don't want to present it as respectable when it may not be. The problem is caused precisely because the journal does not pass WP:GNG in that we do not have nontrivial sources that pay particular attention to the quality of this specific journal. The one difference between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Quantum Information Science is that in that case there was also an issue with promotional and COI edits by the article creator, whereas in this case the responsible editor (Phoenixred) appears to be of good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Your argument was convincing. I have changed my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE and redirect and merge if needed - for those of us who are not admins (just me so far, apparently), I would appreciate the closer not putting the current state of the article beyond my reach before telling me its part of something larger and that it may or may not be notable on its own due to its the publisher's unknown "academic credibility".  The Steve  01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the publisher has hundreds of journals — too many to list them all. So what information from this article do you think should be merged, or what evidence do you have that it is enough more notable than the others to warrant being included in a smaller list of selected journals by that publisher? But I have no particular objection if the decision is to just redirect, without doing an actual delete that would make the old versions inaccessible to non-admins. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps none. It is indeed the delete that bothers me. The merge is an editorial decision that I usually put as a matter of course with a redirect. Occasionally I will perform the merge myself. I prefer to be able to see the information under a redirect, scarce as it may be. I have various reasons for this preference, and I can go into more detail on your talk page, if you wish... The Steve  10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on mergeI oppose a "merge and redirect" decision. There are several reasons for this: First, the article as it currently stands has zero information sourced to reliable sources (Ulrich's just lists publisher-provided info), so there is nothing supported by reliable sources here. Second, what goes for this journal, goes for all the other journals from this publisher: are we going to present info on each and every one of their journals (in a neutral way) in the article on the publisher? I already see them opening the bottles of champagne... Third, if the article is not deleted but only replaced by a redirect, we'll have to put that redirect on our watchlists, because given this publishers history of trying to spam WP, we can expect regular attempts to revert the redirect. If there is no redirect, any recreation will pop up on the new article feed and is likely to be picked up by someone. (Of course, this third reason is just an argument of convenience, my first two arguments are the most important ones). --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 30 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 (public) talk 00:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_3&oldid=1142635559"