Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD, really no indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indication of meeting WP:PROF or anything like it. He doesn't seem to have published any major works, nor does he seem to be cited often (unless none of the works that cite him are known to the omniscient Google). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• His works are listed in the The Oxford Handbook of Free Will and he is well known amongst free will specialists. He regularly presents his work and comments at APA (American Philosophical Association) meetings. 66% of all professors are adjuncts -Anthony.robert.allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.robert.allen (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please make sure you've read WP:PROF.
  2. Then, please provide citations that support the relevant claims.
• Then, we (well, I, at least) will gladly change our minds. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a link to the citations: http://books.google.com/books?id=AeGC8k8xAOwC&q=Robert+Allen#v=snippet&q=Robert%20Allen&f=false I intend to update the article in my sandbox. My father asked me to create the article because someone from his high school listed him (my father) as a notable alumni on the high school's wikipedia article. Anthony.robert.allen (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • הסרפד asked for sources that are about the subject, and that therefore support the biography, rather than sources that are by the subject, which don't provide support for a biography. And when your father asked you should have pointed to User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and responded by asking "Where's an already-published third-party biography of you?". You'd be able to answer הסרפד's question, and point to it, if you had. Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROF. Anthony, your motives were pure, but the notability guidelines for academics are far more strict than for (say) entertainers. GaramondLethe 04:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robopocalypse#Film_adaptation. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robopocalypse (2014 film) (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:NFF, films which have not commenced principal photography are not considered notable. Articles about films should not be started until principal photograph has commenced and this is confirmed by reliable sources. Thus, this article should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it's got Steven Spielberg. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. When A-listers are involved, there's enough media coverage[1][2][3] to support an article. WP:GNG tops WP:NFF. Redirect per Tokyogirl. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film_adaptation. I'm not going to argue if the article is kept, but right now I don't entirely feel that there's enough here to merit it remaining a separate article. Everything that is currently in this article is summed up in the movie subsection of the book's article. Filming hasn't yet started and no one has been officially confirmed as starring in the film, which is probably why filming hasn't started yet. There is a lot of chatter so far, but they all say the same thing: Spielberg will direct the film, Goddard and a few others have been signed for screenwriting and other "behind the camera" type jobs, and that no stars have been officially confirmed. It's just a little too soon, although it's one of those things that is almost guaranteed to become notable. However "guaranteed" is a funny thing since a lot can happen between now and its release. We can't guarantee that Spielberg won't shelve the film or that one of a million other things won't happen to set back the film's progress. Notability isn't inherited by Spielberg directing the film and technically, there isn't really a film, not yet anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has 8 references that should be enough to put notability out of the question as well as having official sources with official information there for this page is notable and fits Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. (H.Brian Griffin (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Have a look at WP:NFF and make a case as to why we should make an exception to the guideline for this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film adaptation per the notability guidelines for future films because filming has not started and is not guaranteed to. When it does, we can have a stand-alone film article for the ages. However, Spielberg's name is not ensuring—he took a very long time to ultimately produce Lincoln and has yet to do anything about Jurassic Park IV despite talking about it for over a decade. In addition, if we were to have a film at some point, the article should be at Robopocalypse (film) and not here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Others may be interested in a related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (5th nomination) for 1906 (film), also a planned film by a well-known director, though coverage is a bit different in this case. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robopocalypse#Film adaptation. Clearly fails WP:NFF, which also states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, possible hoax, 8 years since last AfD when it was kept because it was too new with the provision "lets see how it evolves". It hasn't evolved. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Interestingly, the related article Cherokee calendar has just been deleted as a {{db-g3}} blatant hoax. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note: The names of the moons and their etymologies, however, seem to be confirmed by many sources (with varying spellings), see, for example The Cherokee by Raymond Bial; so I suggest that if this is a hoax, the page be renamed Cherokee calendar, and stubbed down to a list of the months for the time being. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Raymond Bial is a photographer not an ethnographer. Are they repeated in any works by people who have a reason to know anything about Cherokee culture? I can see it is repeated in a lot of New Agey sites, but nothing that seems to have any legtitimate connection to Cherokee culture.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Beginning Cherokee (a dictionary: search for the English names of the months); Western Cherokee Nation of Arkansas & Missouri (again, search for the English names); Anthropological Papers (by the Smithsonian, 1966; search for the Cherokee names). There is nothing particularly New-Agey about any of these, I think.

No that seems legitimate. Would still be more of a list of words than an article, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY would apply.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've found the article's original reference in the revision history, and I've restored it. On the one hand, the author is Joseph Bruchac, who, from his article, seems to be somewhat of an authority; on the other hand, it is a children's audiobook. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. Bruchac is Abenaki I believe, but he would not misrepresent the beliefs of another Native group. I should probably withdraw this nomination, thanks for the research work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:59, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement (2014) (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 can't find sufficient independent references for this film. The production company isn't notable, nor does the film feature notable actors or is a product of noted filmmakers. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and if at all notable WP:TOOSOON JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFF. At best WP:TOOSOON when this is indicated as a 2014 release. AllyD (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definitely too soon and detailed searches at Google News produced nothing relevant. A blog entry at the AspinWall website mentions Shaun Mazerall wrote the film this year so it is obviously not finished. It can't be guaranteed that this film will receive coverage as it seems to be independent. I vote delete with no prejudice towards a future notable article, SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This film just isn't notable at this point in time and I'll admit it's unlikely to ever become notable. Sometimes the homemade/indie films can surprise you, but generally the odds are perpetually stacked against these movies. There is no coverage of this film and it doesn't help that on the talk page an IP asserts that the film's producer wants information withheld on the film. However, with that said, I don't have a problem with the film being userfied if the original editor wants to go that route. He can continue to work on it until it passes notability guidelines, although considering that he appears to be one of the people involved with the movie, I recommend that he gets someone from WP:FILM to assist him.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of general notability. I concur with Tokyogirl179's assessment. No issue with revisiting this topic if film is produced and released with some attention. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFILM and does not seem to have enough sources to meet GNG if at all. Mkdw^talk 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Jamin Newham (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)

It's obvious that the BLP is not a appropriate target for inclusion, however I'm requesting a specific no-speedy AfD so that we can use CSD:G4 on future re-creations (as the creator has threatened to do) Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I originally deleted this article as CSD, but restored it by request of uninvolved editor. The article has no reliable references (IMDb only) and no assertion of notability. Has been speedied under a slightly different title on two previous occasions.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly salt for six months or so - I consider the comments at the first nomination to be blatant attacks, we should resolve this with respect. I understand this user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures but that is not an excuse to behave that way. I found this which lists quite a bit of work under "acting", "model" and "dancing" but I haven't found any reliable third-party sources aside from this (website for a Michael Jackson tribute show in which Ben stars) and this (blog for a theatre production, Fools In Progress). He seems to be talented and has achieved good work and I am sure he will receive additional work possibly enough for an article but there must be reliable third-party sources to establish notability. I'm voting delete with absolutely no prejudice towards a future notable article. In response to the author's comment about Sophie Lowe, it seems the works Blame and Beautiful Kate and AFI award should keep her article for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as per above. Mediran (t • c) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT per the above. Propose a SNOW close. ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be a process/policy wonk, but I suspect that the creator of the article may object to the deletion on potentially reasonable grounds, therefore the SNOW may not be appropriate. I note that the creator is on a 1 week block for reintroducing bad articles. It would be appropriate to let the process ride all the way out so that the consensus is iron-clad. Hasteur (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the same reasons I listed at the original AFD: a new actor with only a few bit parts to his credit. Not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under WP:NOT YET (actors). Minimal career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Allow back only if or when this actor gets a few significant roles or finally gets gets significant coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King (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)

purely promotional PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has been reviewed by NintendoWorldReport, GameSpy, IGN, and Nintendo Power. Meets the GNG. Has content issues (WP:FANCRUFT), but I don't think it needs to be completely deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see anything blatantly promotional in the article, although there is a lot of cruft. However, as Odie demonstrated above, there is plenty of coverage for the game to pass notability guidelines, should one bother to search a little. Salvidrim! 08:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of reliable sources can be found. I've removed the WP:FANCRUFT and added a reliable source. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing WP:GNG, meets notability standards of a videogame article. Jucchan (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of reliable source coverage. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Airline. A10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial flights (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 about commercial flights appears to be redundant of commercial aviation, hence why I suggest deleting or redirecting this entry. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Airline, a better target than commercial aviation. Article could have been csd'd as an article that duplcates one on an existing topic.TheLongTone (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing this a little early(EDIT: actually, it's been a little over two weeks) as it is quite clear that an out-and-out deletion is not going to happen, and AFD is not for the creation / retargeting of redirects. The general !voting pattern is indeed pro-redirect, but the depth of sources and WP:VICTIM suggests that an article may be valid. Further discussion can take place on the talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Victoria Leigh Soto (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)

Basically, WP is not a memorial. As laudable as her actions were, they are part and parcel of the Sandy Hook massacre, and her biography is only notable in that sense. Her life will never be discussed outside of it, and a redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the proper thing to do. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that very well--redirect is a proper thing to do, but so is deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect To Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - As this article does not serve encyclopedic purpose outside of the shooting, it should redirect to the main article.Samvnkauffman (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Subject has no notability beyond this single event. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only notability of the subject is her death which is covered in another article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect TiMike (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that wikipedia is not a memorial, but how about we wait until the bodies are cold and the news stories have settled down, and folks have had a chance to write - or not - about this person before voting to delete this, shall we? --Overand (talk) 17:28, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 23, the AfD should be run for the full seven days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting per WP:BLP1E. Although I fully feel upset about the people who died in the incident, this entry should be redirected because Wikipedia is not a memorial service and the person in question will never be notable outside this incident. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article stands on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as WP:VICTIM details, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD.

Regarding WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:

The historic significance [of the victim] is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

The following reliable sources cover Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:

• The New York Times: Remembering the Passion of a Teacher Who Died Protecting Students
• The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Slain Sandy Hook Teacher, Remembered As Selfless Hero
• The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Newtown Teacher, Emerges As Hero After Shooting
• The Guardian: Victoria Soto: Sandy Hook teacher who wanted to mould young minds
• WHDH: Sandy Hook hero: Victoria Soto
• and many others as shown by a Google News search with the parameters: Victoria Soto Sandy Hook

Regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

Furthermore, Soto's article is referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffington Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per WP:VICTIM which states:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event.

Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.

Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on the article.

Now we have the second part:

The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.

So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.

Regarding precendets, even though Wikipedia is not based on precedents (see WP:PRECEDENT), there is no prima faciae here since there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto.

Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence.

As closing remarks, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting should not substitute discussion. Per WP:CONSENSUS we must state, rather than vote, on why this should be deleted or kept. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense. Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is widely acclaimed as one of the few heros of the massacre. Her notability raises from the fact that she rose to the ocassion. Whether or not her classroom children survived is immaterial: it is an undisputed fact that she gave her life for the students that had been entrusted to her. The scholarship fund, etc., set up further add to her notability. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Keep She is very notable, her actions where heroic in a tragic event, she has been mentioned several times in almost every major news network. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Sandy Hook Shooting article (whatever it's name may be in the future). Her actions were great, she saved kids. Don't take this the wrong way, but we don't need to be a memorial to that. She is notable for only one event. Before Ahnoneemoos continues shooting down anyone who brings up BLP1E, please reference this policy. Excerpt follows:

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person... When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate.

That policy clearly says that we shouldn't have biographies unless they were a major part of a major event. She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occured at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children). That does not work for notability. She did a heroic thing, yes, but that doesn't mean we need to have an article on her. Plus, most of the article right now is just a duplicate of information already in the shooting's article, or information we wouldn't normally have in a biographical article anyway. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:BIO1E Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article. Here, let's examine it rather than just linking to it:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

Is the event "highly significant"? Per NBC, the event is the second worst shooting in the history of the United States. That's makes it "highly significant". Was Soto's role "large" within the context of the event? Per the arguments presented above already, yes, Soto had a "large role" within the event's context.

Was her role large? No. She shot nobody. She was just caught in the crosshairs. She had nothing to do with the actual shooting, she was only a victim of it. Sorry. gwickwire^talk_edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, that very same page holds Wikipedia's policy for this specific matter, in case you missed it: WP:VICTIM is a soft redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (people) which hosts WP:BIO1E as well. So, as you can see, we already have a policy for these circumstances! Evenmoreso, the policy is very clear! Once again, per WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a standalone article.

No she doesn't. She violates WP:BIO1E. Also, I think it might be good if you stop rehashing your arguments with everyone who says redirect. That keeps the page cleaner. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BIO1E, I think one can argue that every victim was notable in their own way for the shooting and each victim did get coverage in the media, does this mean that this one person should have their own article? No, should she be mentioned on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Soto satisfies WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM covers her circumstances. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Life, unfortunately is sometimes boiled down to a single act, in life or in death and history is not only about The acts of Presidents. As societies we must recognize this. We have the Congressional Medal of Honor in The US. Sometimes we must recognize the single act of everyday civilians for posterity and do so knowing that there are so many that we cannot possibly recognize, it speaks to who we are. history and culture is not written by congressmen and kings. We are talking about maybe 3k of space in a world where storage is increasingle and exponentially shrinking in cost. Archaeologists thousands of years from now (or more) might only be able to judge our world society based on these few bytes. Their equivalent of a broken urn. Let us record our true heros who unarmed stood up to monsters to save our children. It's cheap, it's effortless to us. Make good decisions esteemed editors..-Justanonymous (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the fact is Soto's unselfish sacrifice has spawned two massive petitions on the We the People petition website at the White House's official website as well as Change.org proves that people want to memorialized the death of a person gone too soon. The petitions demand that President Obama a posthumous Medal of Freedom for her sacrifice as well as the renaming of a street in her honor in Newton. If the street is renamed, which it most likely will be, than the subject has substantial notability for an article on this site.--XLR8TION (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. BLP1E (even though she is no longer alive) still applies here: her only notable facet of her live was her last act of sacrifice to protect the children; this does not require a separate article to cover one action. This is not to say that if she is give a Congressional Medal or that some law is named after her, that we can consider recreating the article, but that's all CRYSTAL. Further, I would worry this would become a memorial because really that's all the focus would be on at this time. Even past that, any discussion of her role in the events of Sandy Hook would duplicate the discussion already on that article. All that is appropriate for an encyclopedia about her is stated in the Sandy Hook article. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to WP:BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

Regarding your other arguments, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and, therefore, is not constrained on what it can host. You need to look at Soto from an WP:NPOV: was this person (whoever she is) significantly covered by reliable sources in an exclusive manner? Forget the event or who she was. Was she covered persistently by reliable sources? If the answer is yes then that's enough merit for inclusion on Wikipedia: regardless of how we feel about it or our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not host.

Now, regarding WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, you need to first understand why that policy was created and, second, what that policy entails. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL was created because people were creating articles of deceased people that didn't put their life in context to merit a standalone article. See for example: WP:RIP; now that's a memorial. It just says who they were, how they died, and that they were Wikipedians. Soto's article, however, is not a memorial: it details how she was involved in an event with historic significance and what was her role in such event. Notice we don't care what the event was nor what what she actually did: we only care about the fact that (1) the event was historically significant and that (2) she had a significant role within the event's context.

I understand your concerns, but the truth is that in this particular case wether we like it or not, Soto satisfies all criteria. This is based on facts and evidence, not on our personal opinion on what Wikipedia should or should not be.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However harsh this may sound, she did only one thing in the event - attempt to protect her students and got shot doing it. That is not a significant role in the event. This is well covered in the Sandy Hook article. As her life before being killed was non-notable, only post-death honorariums will increase her notability for an article. You need to read all of BLP1E because it gives several additional points of consideration, and not simply summated by the one phrase you are requoting over and over. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that WP:BLP1E does not apply to this case, period; regardless of what the whole policy states. It just does not apply to Soto because she is dead. Furthermore, we have a specific policy for these matters already: WP:VICTIM. Now, it does not matter wether she did one, two, three, or a million things. What matters is if the event and her role within the event was significantly covered by reliable sources. In Soto's case both criteria are easily fulfilled. Furthermore, and to counterargument your argument, Soto actually did more than one thing: (1) putting herself between the attacker and the victims, (2) being a victim herself, (3) have a fund in her name, and (4) be covered significantly by reliable sources several times. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BLP1E applies even though she's dead, because she was only notable for one event, and so close to her death, we have no idea of any enduring coverage - the whole intent of BLP1E. Be aware every "policy" you are quoting are actually guidelines, and none of them demand a stand-alone article just because they are met, just that a stand-alone article is possible. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnoneemoos: If you are so concerned that BLP1E doesn't apply because she's dead, see BIO1E which applies to all biographies. She is only notable for one event, therefore, BIO1E applies. Her role was not a large enough role in the event to allow an article. She was not the shooter. The shooter, maybe, should get his own article eventually. She was a victim. She was not a part of the event, she was a victim of the event. There is nothing in WP:VICTIM that says she should have her own article, but there's a lot in WP:VICTIM that says she shouldn't, and excerpts follow: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The victim... [is the subject of] coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. No source I have seen devotes an entire article (not a short stubby article, but an entire normal length for the source article) to her actions. Sorry. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe that the expression used by the nominator "Her life will never be discussed outside of it" is POV and should not be included. Soto will always be remembered for her brave actions, especially every year when the Connecticut State University awards the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" to its deserving students. The most ridiculous statement that I have read so far here is "She didn't have anything to do with the shooting other than being a part of the school it occurred at, and doing what she was hired to do (protect her children)." First of all, she sacrificed her live and saved many children by standing between them and the shooter. Second of all, she was hired to teach and was not required to give her life for others. Had she been a soldier she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor for her sacrifice. Why not then delete or redirect every article written about those who were awarded the Medal of Honor? After all with the reasoning here we can assume that theirs was an act of a single event and that they will be forgotten? Antonio Martin (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where we have to learn that we have to write the encyclopedia from a compassionate-less POV (hence NOT#MEMORIAL). Yes, her actions were brave and tragic that she lost her life. But from an encyclopedia, she was just a one figure among several involved with the event. If she were to receive a honorarium due to her actions akin to the Medal of Honor, then there may be something more to talk about. But that's CRYSTAL that that's going to happen. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is it too soon a choice? Ahnoneemoos takes a reasoned, well thought out, and compelling stance on keeping the article and I commend this person for it, but can't we put some "distance" between the event and making declarations about what constitutes "historical significance"? The world is still reacting to the "raw shock" of the event and we're seemingly rushing to attribute status to someone who is famous for last moments of her life. Please don't my word for this, search for articles on victims of 911 and see what turns up.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! We actually have an essay on that very same subject; check out WP:TOOSOON. Fortunately, it's just an essay, not a policy. In Soto's case we do have a policy that cover her circumstances: WP:VICTIM. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, fair enough.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. For the moment. Also, pending further developments including Medal of Freedom, for the moment house this article's content as appropriate compared to other heroes'/victims' mentions in the main Sandy Hook article. As an aside, if every hero of Sandy Hook should get an article, then where is the article for the principal and the school psychologist who rushed the shooter and also paid with their lives? Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my post above, multiple independent reliable sources about Dawn Hochsprung:

Sandy Hook Principal: Mother, Educator, Leader, Hero (Huffington Post/Newtown Patch), Colleagues Remember Sandy Hook Principal (CBS News), Hundreds pay respects to Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung (Washington Post), Principal Dawn Hochsprung a ’5-foot-2-inch Raging Bull’ Lifesaver (ABC News), Dawn Hochsprung: Sandy Hook Elementary’s Heroic Principal (Daily Beast), Slain Connecticut principal remembered as energetic, positive, passionate (CNN).

Per my Comment elsewhere on this page, I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article which could then include all the adults who sacrificed themselves for those children. This is covered by multiple reliable sources: Hamill: Sandy Hook’s heroes give us hope for ’13 (NY Daily News), School psychologist died trying to protect others (USA Today story about Mary Sherlach). Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect extremely noble and heroic person, but even though BLP1E does not apply to the deceased, this article will always be a pseudobiography, and does not need to be stand aloneGaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Although her actions are memorable, she doesn't meet GNG by herself. Also, we have this BLP1E issue... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. Classic WP:1E. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Clear redirect case where the person is only notable for one event -- sadly in this case a tragedy -- but unless more emerges and she has a bigger effect such as Rachel Scott from the Columbine shooting where a movement was formed because of her writing. Mkdw^talk 07:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect only notable for one event. Can be restored if she has a long term cutural impact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Twenty-eight students and teachers were "victims" at their school, but, unlike most of the others, Victoria became an "active participant" when she stood, confronted the killer and tried to give those under her care an extra chance, a fact that has merited ample coverage by independent media. In doing so, she became a role model. Teachers are not required to die for their students, unlike soldiers who are expected to die for their fellow soldiers. Yet soldiers who go the extra mile are recognized with medals and special recognition in Wikipedia, while some would deny a teacher who stood to take a bullet for her kids similar recognition in Wikipedia, not as a prize but as a remarkable method to allow others to learn from her heroism. I agree that the rules allow Victoria to be covered by a "stand-alone" article and Wikipedia will better serve its users for it. Pr4ever (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as a stand-alone article. Victoria Leigh Soto was not merely a "victim." She engaged in direct, meaningful action which cost her life and saved many others. As such, she is much closer to the textbook definition of hero or heroine, than mere victim. A teacher who takes a bullet for her students, and actually saves several of them, is a great deal more than just a victim. In addition, even if Victoria Leigh Soto were only a "victim" (which she is not), this article would stand on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, and WP:VICTIM—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. Victoria Leigh Soto, as per WP:VICTIM, played a large role in a historical event that was well-documented. In addition, as per WP:VICTIM, her role has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event.

Finally, we have clear precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. The Sanders and the Bishop articles, have both been in Wikipedia for over five years. To keep them and not Victoria Leigh Soto, would be a glaring double standard.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:About the Sanders article: It was not written until 2007, has no inline citations and has been tagged for improvement since 2009. About the Bishop article, it was not written until November 2007, several months after the sad events at VA Tech. I see nothing wrong with possibly redirecting Soto to a 'Heroes' section of the main article. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012(UTC)

Thank you for your chronology. Since you're so intent on splitting hairs, in seven hours we will enter 2013, and both the Sanders and Bishop articles will technically be six, not five years old. These articles, and their long existance in Wikipedia, provide ample precedent for Victoria Leigh Soto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsondenis248 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 December 2012(UTC)

Comment: My point was that the articles were not written immediately following the events that precipitated them, that time passed before they went live into Wikipedia mainspace. Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be reevaluated after a period of time, if it appears that this person really does not deserve an article. At this time she appears to. I am sympathetic to the BLP1E argument but I don't think it applies here. I also feel that the sourcing of the article itself can be improved. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to be ample precedent for this article, and she received significant coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to main article on the shooting. Let me note that I expect this MAY change over the upcoming years/months. The individual was non-notable before the event. She was forced into action and showed wonderful leadership in the middle of a tragedy, but not sufficient enough to have a separate article. In similar situations (i.e. Columbine), "leaders" were also not notabel enough for individual article until later when books, movies, TV movies, etc were written about them. I would not be surprised if this happens in this case too - and at that point, she may indeed be notable enough for an individual article. Otherwise, 1-event itself is not significant enough to provide the required level of notability. Note: we in the press HAVE emphasized her actions: having a hero sells more newspapers, but that does not make her article-worthy yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Arguments based on WP:BLP1E can be safely ignored. If editors don't like the article, nobody's forcing them to work on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E (which applies regardless of BLP status). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. In my opinion, this also fails WP:VICTIM which typically applies to coverage that centers around the victim (e.g. Matthew Shepard). Location (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum  There is no deletion being discussed here, either of the edit history or of the redirect.  The correct place for the discussion is on the talk page of the article.  Note that a redirect-without-deleting-the-edit-history outcome from AfD is not binding on the community.  Likewise, a keep outcome does not prevent a later decision to redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many many AfD's result in redirect, and that redirect would be precedent for any other AfD that comes about when someone recreates an article over the redirect with the same content. Regardless, deletion is a valid option in this option so it's the right forum. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your redirect assertion, I refer you to King of Hearts, who reopened this discussion.  It seems that admins don't like to get involved in such disputes since they are content disputes, not deletion issues.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just flat-out wrong. --Conti|✉ 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement seems to be responding to my post.  Please be more specific.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's can end up with a decision other than "delete" or "keep", and "redirect" is one of them. And that is as binding to the community as any other AfD outcome. --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rational outside observers are likely to regard this as idiocy, with good reason. We don't need to go out of our way to embarass Wikipedia; that's done enough in the ordinary course of events here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. A voice of reason in this wilderness. I fully agree. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article on the shooter, too? --Conti|✉ 12:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Only notable as a victim of a school shooting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, she has gained prominence as a heroine of the shooting. If she was just a victim I would favor deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People who are really significant in a major event acquire notability, because people write about them at length. WP:BIO1E explicates this dilemma fairly well. To quote, "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The shooting is a major event, not some 15 minutes' wonder on Twitter, and the individual in question has received extremely high levels of coverage. We've well passed the threshold. Ray^Talk 20:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E (recently deceased). She was clearly a wonderful and brave person, but no, sorry - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Dyalan Kyebold and Eric Harris have a wikipedia page for their notoriety in a school shooting, I think Victoria should have one too, for example Rachel Scott and other victims of Columbine have wikipedia pages - User:Cabelo545 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. To be fair and stay neutral, wouldn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also apply to "Redirect" comments above such as this one above "Redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Everything needed can be covered there. We don't even have an article on the shooter... --Conti|✉ 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" ???
      • Sure, adding "we don't even have an article on the shooter" is OSE as well. However, the first part of that argument about the reason to redirect is appropriate. --MASEM (t)
• Comment. How reliable are these hero claims? The only living witnesses are 10-year-old children who were inside a cupboard and no doubt deeply traumatised by the incident. Yes, she probably did attempt to hide the children, but who can say that her actions were "heroic" rather than what any sensible adult would do in the situation? WWGB (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand our policies, what matters is that we reflect what is in reliable sources, such as this article in the NY Daily News today: [4]. I understand your point, but I think that the large amount of publicity that she has received tips the balance in favor of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What determines notability is not a brief burst of coverage but enduring coverage. So yes, nearly every victim in the shooting had a burst of news coverage, but there's almost no enduring coverage of these persons any more outside their deaths within the shooting. This is not rule out that a potential article on any victim including Soto may be possible in the future if, say, a memorial, a law given their name (ala the Amber Alerts), etc., but right now, that doesn't exist and it would be CRYSTAL to assume these will occur. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect unless there's long-term cultural impact from her actions within the larger event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should default to redirect to my mind. (I did !vote for redirect.) Anyone who gets their name in the paper will get keep votes in a discussion like this. This is essentially an offshoot from a main article and requires consensus for creation, not the other way around. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for creation is not required per WP:BEBOLD and WP:NOTPAPER. If this comes to no consensus it would mean that the people participating on this AfD could not reach a consensus on how to proceed with the article and, therefore, should be left as is since no particular action was preferred on this discussion to change its current status. You can, however, request an WP:DRV or nominate it for AfD once again a few months down the road. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While I'm sure the game is fun this seems purely promotional as per WP:SPIP. I did a quick search of google to see if any newspapers have ran anything on this game and I did not see any. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep of this and The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King - WP:BEFORE applies here. Several excellent references in the reliable sources search. AfD is not cleanup. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep For video games, a good check is to go to the Metacritic/MobyGames entry and see what is listed for rankings. For the mobygames entry, it lists reviews in GameZone, TeamXbox, JeuxVideo, Yahoo! Games, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, Game Informer, Eurogamer, and 1UP. Metacritic shows 34 reviews including Play Magazine, Siliconera, PSM Magazine, Famitsu magazine, Official US PlayStation Magazine, GamersHell, GamingNexus, PALGN, G4TV, Sydney Morning Herald, and Computer and Video Games. This article clearly meets the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also like to note that WP:SPIP probably doesn't apply here. I highly doubt the editors of the article were intentionally adding promotional material to generate sales for the game. Their addition of minutia is more likely the will of fandom (WP:FANCRUFT). --Odie5533 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So any videogame is an automatic keep? I only ask because it is likely that most games will recieve routine coverage. I don't see anything notable about this one other than Capcom made it. But was it a hit or a cult classic? Also just saying WP:BEFORE and not elaborating is not helpful. Especially since I actually went to Google and nothing came up except for video game websites. I also don't believe PSM has a record for fact checking and accuracy. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews constitute critical commentary, not routine coverage. Routine coverage would be a press release, or a churned press release. For me, if a game receives a few (3+) full page reviews in any medium, it is almost always sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. I'd argue against it, but I've seen games pass AfD with far, far less than this. Sometimes only a few few-sentence reviews buys a video game a keep. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The bar seems amazingly low for videogames. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's supposed to be a Wikipedia-wide threshold. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". "Multiple" could be as few as 2. And WP:N is only a guideline. The true minimum threshold is set by WP:V, believe it or not. But you certainly won't see me arguing to ignore WP:N. It's basically a de facto policy and rightly so in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films, TV episodes, albums and singles all have a similar minimal requirements (within the GNG), so its nothing special for video games. Note this doesn't extent to all VG's, as many smaller titles go unnoticed. Further, a possible option in the future if there's no development information and just some reception is to create a "List of The Nigthmare Before Christmas video games" to summarize them all. But that's not a matter at AFD to worry about. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — With the plethora of reviews of the game in reliable outlets, including Times Online, Eurogamer, IGN, 1UP, Game Informer, GameSpy, Famitsu, Play Magazine, and others, it appears to satisfy the general criteria for notability (GNG). Mephistophelian (contact) 06:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - multiple reliable sources can be found. I've added one as well as removed the WP:FANCRUFT. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013( (UTC)

• Keep per all the coverage presented above. (It seems the nominator just isn't familiar with what is considered a reliable source for video games. For what it's worth, it may seem like the bar is set low, but it really isn't - the industry is currently going through some changes that is re-emphasizing little projects and small dev teams, and it is keeping out a lot of these little non-notable iOS and web browser type games.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. C679 07:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2010 Asian Games – Women's team squads (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)

Original rationale for deletion was: "Not useful, impossible to verify." PROD contested as an invalid reason, however this list is permanently incomplete due to the information being impossible to verify, thus failing WP:V and should be deleted. C679 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You state this stuff is "impossible to verify" but did you try? In approximately 5 minutes I found this or this. Or this. 176.253.45.152 (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs completing and improving, I can't see why it should be deleted on varified! I am sure there should be plenty of sources around. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - sources have now been found, are these enough to ease the nominator's concerns? GiantSnowman 09:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Three of six, would be more content with six of six. North Korea anybody? C679 15:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thereyar. This nom REEKS of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. 90.216.162.70 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs to be completed with references not deleted. I'd rather have half the information, referenced, then to delete the article completely. TonyStarks (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PROD contested by IP who stated "taken out deletion notification this page relates to a very notable soccer club in ireland" - however there is no evidence of any notability and they appear to be a non-notable local team. GiantSnowman 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please refer the article. I have added the references to the article. While searching for the article I understood the notability of the article. It is a famous one and the article is needed. Please support the article and keep it.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to evidence any claim to notability through reliable sources - you have not yet done so. GiantSnowman 23:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Club has not played at the national level of football in Ireland, a European competition, or a domestic cup and they fail WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep athenry soccer club is a very notable club in the west of ireland with 3 premier titles and a host of juvenile titles and awards, also winning the fai junior club award, it has also provided numerous players to league of ireland clubs most notably galway united — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.14.252 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has not played at a notable level, and fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:GNG, as the club hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrybomb (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 neologism. PROD was removed by article creator. Slon02 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced how-to make drink article. No context. Nothing on Google. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, how-to concept. There appears to be no notability signals, while the article may also be a neologism. The only available sources regarding the source are self-published sources, which are not deemed reliable typically. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 by Jimfbleak. KTC (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerCraft (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 essay. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:55, 30 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. Opinions are divided about whether the subject meets the notability requirements, which is a matter of editorial judgment, so the result is "when in doubt, don't delete" (WP:DGFA). Because few opinions discussed the sources in detail (the way RayAYang did, for instance), it is possible that a second and more thorough discussion will reach consensus.  Sandstein  01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riin Tamm (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)

Following discussion on the article's talkpage, a number of editors have expressed concern as to whether this individual meets notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see article's talkpage. David (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A close case, but this seems to meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. There is coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources. I think we should be careful of systematic bias in dismissing some of these Estonian sources. Also, I suspect this is attracting more scrutiny than it deserves because it was featured on WP:DYK. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see, this fails WP:PROF by a long stretch (and won't come close to meeting it for years to come, either). Can you perhaps tell us why you think this meets PROF? --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The board membership and chairship in national Estonian scientific organizations. My comments directed towards systematic bias largely stem from these dismissals. We give examples of other nation-level scientific organizations (e.g., the Royal Society) on point 3 of WP:PROF. Beyond that though, the article still passes WP:BIO in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think that you can compare board membership in the Estonian Society of Human Genetics (with, according to its article, 87 members) or of the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (154 members) with being an elected fellow of the Royal Society, which is a very selective honor (and please also note that PROF#3 does not apply to board members of the Royal Society). That has nothing to do with a systematic bias against anything Estonian. It's just the reality that an 87 or 154-member society is not a huge body and with 6 board members (who usually rotate every few years), soon every member of the society would be notable under your interpretation of PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm with Randy here. Though admittedly this isn't a clear cut case, and I think it's good to consider Gargoyle's point about systemic bias. I'm not really sure comparisons drawn between the Royal Society and any Estonian scientific organization are really valid. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about WP:BIO and WP:GNG? The Postimees and Ohtuleht articles seem to be non-trivial coverage. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. But those are two articles in what are basically minor local sources. Still strikes me as borderline notability at best. NickCT (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 23 citations in total means she is not notable as a scientist. She can still be notable as a journalist due to her pop-sci publications, but this has not been demonstrated in the article so far. I would be willing to reconsider if her notability as a journalist has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is arguing to keep based on how many publications she has. What about WP:GNG? At least two of those references seem to be non-trivial coverage from independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She does not pass the specialized WP:PROF "inherent notability" guideline for academics, but the citations show she clearly passes the WP:GNG test. She is a notable personality in the sense that Estonian TV and radio shows, newspapers and magazines ask her to pontificate about genetics and aging, and she organizes various national conferences and professional groups. A notable science pundit in Estonia. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to bust on Estonia or anything, but we are talking about a country of 1 million with a $15K GDP/cap. Saying "A notable science pundit in Estonia." is like saying, "A notable science pundit in Wyoming" (i.e. not that notable). NickCT (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not trying to bust on Estonia"... sounds like "with all due respect" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this source the Estonian GDP per capita is 67% of the EU-27 average, at €11,918. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Crisco 1492 - How does one say "I don't this country is very notable" is a nice and respectful manner? NickCT (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that you want to say that indicates that your argument is fallacious. Notability is not fame nor importance. It has no relationship to size of the country of origin. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ugh oh.... Folks are bandying about big words like "fallacious"...... Look, a couple of people have basically made the argument that this subject seems important on the national level in Estonia. The obvious and completely non-fallacious response to that is; if Estonia isn't super notable, than the subject's notability on the national stage doesn't by itself confer notability. I absolutely agree that notability isn't fame or importance. But notability also isn't local. Just because someone is the premier scientist in Estonia or Andorra or Monaco or wherehave you, doesn't mean they're notable on the world stage. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • • You "don't this country is very notable" [sic]? Well, feel free to AFD everything related to Estonia. A singer or artist or science populariser notable at the national level should very much be notable, no matter what country he or she comes from. To say otherwise is to be decidedly Anglocentric (considering the number of D-level local celebrities from the US and Britain which have articles) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think we may be confusing notability w/ importance. Notability is international, universal and without regard for locality. Imagine I'm an artist from Andorra. I may be the best artist in Andorra (i.e. I may be important on a national level). That still doesn't really mean I'm "notable". Per Uncle G's comment; what really matters is the "depths and provenances of sources". "Notable at a national level" doesn't really make sense, because if someone is notable, they are notable at all levels. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "International" does not show up in WP:N, at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Also, if you are the best artist in Andorra yet have no coverage (even in national publications), how can we say you're the best? Tamm has coverage at the national level, which is enough to satisfy the guideline. She may get more later, but the criteria is already satisfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think your missing the point. Notability is a state a being. Like being dead. If you're dead, you're dead no matter what country you're in. Notability means you've been covered in RSs. If you're covered in RSs, you're covered in RSs no matter which country you're in. Again, the question we ought to be asking is about the "depths and provenances of sources". NickCT (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is, and she is in such a state under our current guidelines which do not require RSes to be international. Now, you were the one who brought in the nationality aspect (small nation = [next to] no notability). Remember? "Saying 'A notable science pundit in Estonia.' is like saying, 'A notable science pundit in Wyoming' (i.e. not that notable)." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Actually, if you read back, you'll note that Aymatth2 used the "notable in Estonia" comment to justify his "keep" rationale. Additionally, if you read through a number of comments below, you'll note a number of them use the "in Estonia this person is important" logic. Plus, you repeated the idea of "notability at a national level" being of some importance in determining whether we should keep/delete. I guess you no longer feel "at a national level" is relevant? re "do not require RSes to be international" - Right, but there is nothing in WP:RS about using the national origin of a source to determine if it's reliable. In other words, when judging whether something is a reliable source, you're not meant to consider whether it's Andorran, Estonian, etc... I guess by "international" what I meant is "not linked to any particular nationality" (perhaps that was unclear). NickCT (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the newspaper coverage is quite substantial indication passing the WP:GNG requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep that she is notable in her country is enough for Wikipedia. We have never required subjects to be world famous, otherwise articles like Chrisye would have been deleted. National relevance is certainly enough — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she certainly passes WP:GNG. Yazan (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As discussed above, there is no way this meets WP:PROF. Any notability therefore will have to come from WP:GNG. I agree with NickCT. Where is the limit? Countries come in many sizes and being well-known in one country is not the same as being well-known in another (or even in part of another country). Would the president of a learned society be notable if that society were, say, the "Nauru Association of Human Geneticists" (assuming there is even one over there)? Or if somebody is regularly consulted by the Andorran national newspaper Diari d'Andorra? Estonia is a very small country. Some other small countries like Belgium and the Netherlands have single cities with about as many inhabitants. Even within Estonia, Tamm's notability may be limited. Postimees has only a circulation of 61,000 to 72000, Õhtuleht less than 250,000. In all, I don't think this meets WP:GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've succumbed to the same fame and importance fallacy as NickCT above. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, instead. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I rarely comment at AfDs, but noticed this article when it appeared on the main page and when I was leaving a note on the talk page of one of the editors of this article (possibly the DYK nominator). I have looked at some of the other articles worked on and/or created by the creator of this article, and is it possible that what we are seeing here in some cases is the creation of articles to go with photos? In some cases, that is fine, but my view (admittedly rather to the extreme end of the BLP debate) is that to really have a sense of what someone's career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it, or when obituaries are published. While people are still doing what may make them notable, we should really only have a short stub (literally only a paragraph or two), which can then be expanded later as various levels are reached (such as attaining the awards and honours conferred by their peers as they progress in their career) and proper biographical sources are published. These include career retrospectives and articles to mark retirements and so on. For the vast majority of people, article are created far too early. They may continue to accrue notability and coverage, but there is really no need to create articles too early. It just ends up with discussions like this. Compare with William Francis (civil engineer), an article I recently reviewed for DYK. At the end of the day, we can't predict whether someone will continue to receive coverage or not, so we may end up with an article that never really goes anywhere (there are literally thousands of examples out there). Better to work on established people towards the end of their careers, rather than those at the start of their careers. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth - re "the creation of articles to go with photos?" - I suspected that, but am not sure. re "career has achieved, you have to wait until the end of it," - An interesting idea. But I think it would require some serious policy revision to enact that line of thinking. This AfD is probably not the best forum for serious policy debates. NickCT (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. It passes requirements and is well sourced.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the outlook at AfD can be a bit short-term. It is entirely possible for an article to pass requirements and be well sourced, but still have an uncertain future. There is the very real possibility that Wikipedia will, if it has not already, end up with too many BLPs or stubby biographical articles to feasibly maintain. The line I try and draw is whether the birth and/or death year is known with any certainty. What you don't want to end up with is articles that are carefully maintained while someone is (presumably) alive, and then as they get older and fade from the public eye, all interest is lost in them, and their passing is not mentioned anywhere, and you end up with articles in a kind of limbo. An extreme example is Jack James (fencer). There are literally thousands of sportsperson bios like that. Where do you start with doing anything with that article? A less extreme example is Robert D. Parks, nominated for deletion in 2006. The changes since then in six years are here. Again, where do you start with an article like that? Getting a birth year would be a good start, but many people still engaged in their career don't have the right sort of retrospective material published about them that tell us when they were born. It is the difference between CV-style information that people publish in their lifetimes (slanted towards promoting themselves to others and prospective employers), and proper, encyclopaedic, biographical overviews of someone's life. Apologies for going off-topic for this discussion, but it is something that should be discussed at WT:BIO or WT:GNG or somewhere. Those examples were not random, by the way, as the names are common so finding the information requested is particularly tricky. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes all requirements and has a number of different sources. Not even sure why this is being discussed: is she suffering from some form of cultural censorship for not being from the Western powers? - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh that's right..... The evil Westerners are trying to keep the Esotnians down. That's what this AfD is about. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's about the provenances and depths of sources, not Estonia at all. Notability is not fame nor importance. Try addressing the depths and provenances of sources, lest people conclude that the reason that you keep trying to make this a discussion of how unimportant Estonia is to you is that the argument about the provenances and depths of sources is unassailable. If you want to show otherwise, actually address the issue, instead of repeatedly distracting from it. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • re "how unimportant Estonia is" - Listen, if it sounds like I was making that point, I was only making it in response to a bunch of folks arguing that being important within the context of Estonia confers notability. "the depths and provenances of sources" are absolutely the only thing we should be considering, and I just don't think they support this subject's inclusion. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a very borderline case in my opinion, but leaning towards Keep. Deb (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Deb; it's borderline. Therefore I lean towards "keep". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable in Estonia and therefore meets WP:GNG. It's not necessary for this individual to be known internationally for her to meet the notability requirements. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This discussion has become much longer that the discussed article itself :-D Personally, I don’t think my Polish translation troubles someone. Happy New Year to everybody! --SU ltd. (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) …and my Kirghiz stub as well. Saloom aleykum! --Kylike (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete
  • Fails the citation requirements of WP:PROF#C1, which is not surprising considering that we're talking about a graduate student.
  • Fails the requirements of WP:PROF#C3, or "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."
    • The Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics is a very nice organization, but can hardly be classified as a major learned society. To quote the English version of its website, [5] "EGGA is a voluntary union of people wishing to improve the life and health of the elderly. The association was created in 1997. As of January 1st 2012 EGGA has 125 members. EGGA members include people working with the elderly (medical doctors, nurses, social workers, rehabilitation specialists, nurse helpers, care workers, managers of care institutions), representatives of pensioners, those taking care of sick family members, and the elderly themselves." Board membership in what is essentially a club of people with a common interest (not dissimilar to a local Meetup) is not grounds for notability under WP:PROF#C3.

• • • Membership on the board of the Estonian Society of Human Genetics seems to be essentially an administrative responsibility, and not a distinction of scientific merit - that role seems to be fulfilled by its Lifetime Achievement Award, which the subject has not won, which fortunately lets us dodge the debate about whether a learned society in a country of 1.2 million people, with 118 members, should be considered on the same plane with storied bodies like the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Science or the Academie Francaise.
  • We now pass to discussion of WP:PROF#C7 and the basic criterion of WP:BIO, or the coverage the subject has achieved outside the field of pure academic accomplishment. What we have here appear to be, according to Google Translate, a profile in the Tartu Post Times, an essay by the subject, and several articles on genetics where the subject is quoted briefly, mainly to the effect that less than 2% of the human genome has been studied. The essay by the subject can be disregarded as a primary source.
    • Brief quotations concerning general knowledge by a student are not unusual in local newspapers, and do not constitute significant coverage or impact on science (to quote the guideline, "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.")
    • The profile in the Tartu Post Times [6] is different. It is essentially a narration of an interview of the subject, since out of 26 scientists chosen to popularize science to schoolchildren in Estonia by the Archimedes Foundation (a foundation chartered by the Estonian government to promote the science of the country [7]), she is one of 4 females and only one of 2 doctoral students chosen. Out of all the sources given, it comes closest to establishing grounds for notability. Judgment calls here are going to be subjective, but in my opinion, human interest profiles of promising young scientists, particularly attractive ones, are not uncommon in local newspapers, and do not constitute the sort of significant coverage that truly attends a person of note - particularly since we have only this one profile.

To conclude, what I think we have here is a promising young graduate student with an affinity for PR and community outreach, but has not yet passed the bar for notability, either as a scientist or for other accomplishments. Ray^Talk 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what RayAYang says here. It is clear that notability (in the sense of independent reliable sources writing about someone) is something that accrues throughout a person's life at various times. As I said above, the true litmus test for me is what is said about a person retrospectively, either towards the end of their career, after their career, or after they have died. What is said about a person at the time is not as useful, as it can lack the objectivity provided by distance in time. It is clear that as a person accrues notability, they cross some line that is hard to identify precisely. My view is that it is better to wait and err on the side of caution before creating articles like this. Also in part because it must be excruciating to be the subject of an article like this and have it debated like this. One final point: for science, one clear measure of notability that can in part address the issue for smaller countries where it may not be clear how prestigious the national organisation is, is whether someone has been elected to membership of a foreign learned or academic society, rather than just ones within the country. No comment on where Estonian science organisations fall on this spectrum. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The picture of the subject used in this article File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg is now a featured picture on commons and so had appeared on many WP wikis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ray summed whole notability part really well. Sort of borderline case but I don't really like borderline BLPs. As we are dealing with living person its better to be sure. Possibly can be recreated in future if subject receives some more coverage.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Furry fandom. Whether to merge anything from the history is an editorial issue.  Sandstein  01:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kemono (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 has been an issue for over 5 years. It has never been properly referenced, versions on on foreign language pages (aside from ja.wiki) are based on an ancient version of this page, and in Japan this term is equated with the word "furry". I turned the page into a redirect to furry fandom in July, but an anon came along a month later saying "this article is different".

There is nothing in this article that is salvagable. When I turned it into a redirect ages ago, the only thing I had to do on furry fandom was change a section directing people to the page into a sentence that basically read "kemono is Japanese for furry". However I do not even think we need to make that mention.

To sum things up, "kemono" is a neologism that has only presence in an English speaking community to refer to what are simply their Japanese counterparts. There are no publications that even remotely touch upon this aspect of the Internet subculture (and certainly not one that differentiates between Western and Eastern art and artists). This page has existed as original research and a bunch of links to things that people want to term this with for ages and it's time Wikipedia be rid of it. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No contest, for now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the appropriate furry art article, including any information about the art genre's centuries of history in Japan. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude that hasn't been on the page in ages. There's nothing worth saving on this page anymore.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to furry fandom--TKK ^{bark !} 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Did someone check here (Google Japan Link) for sources? I would love to search but cant read Japanese. In addition a past version of the article (Past version) shows external links to possible notable artists (One being Osamu Tezuka) Link - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Kemono" is a common word in Japanese just like "furry" would be if you googled that. The search results simply show links to a lot of Japanese furry artwork and Japanese furry community sites, as well as uses in Japanese for the original meaning of "animal".—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Furry fandom. Neologism that is not itself the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. However, the term is a possible search term, so a redirect won't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to furry fandom as per the comments above. This article is just a bundle of unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Haloway (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)

Character from a slightly notable series of novels that don't even have their own article. This belongs on a fansite, or if an article is created for Delirium Trilogy, in an extremely condensed format on there. PROD was removed, hence taking to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG in that no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources can be found.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a character from a novel series that doesn't even have its own article? Unless an article is created for the series then there's no justification in keeping one especially since she hasn't been the subject of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syrian Civil War slogans (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)

POV fork of Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September–December 2012)‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Page has again been moved back to List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in breach of NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALready fully dealt with on article's talkpage. Also, these slogans are no longer mentioned on the timeline article(s) - now an agreed stance. Ergo: can't be a 'fork'.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not agreed upon at all to split the article, you did it because you think these are "defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV" Which is why you moved the article to it's current non neutral name. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is about one or two sentences of material here. Why not just merge it into Syrian Civil War? —  AjaxSmack  18:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is to be merged it should go back to the article it got forked from. But I do not think a redirect titled List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans is NPOV per POVTITLE Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Seven quotes don't constitute an article, especially when the are all connected to one article. Trinitresque (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability to merit its own article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK; creator has described the slogans as "worthless dishonest anti-Syria slogans". Powers ^T 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is simply not encyclopedic content. Plain non-notable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be better on WikiQuote. Mkdw^talk 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  01:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica–Kosovo relations (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:GNG. all this is to this relationship is diplomatic recognition, which is already covered in International recognition of Kosovo. there is no trade, no visits by leaders, no migration, no embassies etc. also bilateral relations articles are not inherently notable and being part of a Wikiproject adds no strength to notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no way that a topic like this is going to be notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 30 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 after multiple recreations (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Jamin Newham (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 actor. A few bit parts to his credit, but nothing significant yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Already speedied twice today under a different title. The creator has been warned about creating inappropriate pages, including what does and does not constitute a reliable ref. Now speedied a third time. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but nothing significant yet."… fuck you!?…He's in a movie with Hugh Jackman and he's done MORE short films than sophie Lowe… she has a wikipedia page… i expect you to request hers deleted aswell then???….

i will create him another page tomorrow and will continue to re-create them until they are left up… he is more than note worthy, and you are no-one to be the judge anyway!

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 KTC (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magpet Air (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)

Looks like a hoax as it fails the Google test. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, I too think it is a hoax, see their "official website". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:16, 30 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 Antagomir. In part, minus the promotionalism.  Sandstein  01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blockmir (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 supported by independent reliable sources. The only sources in the article that specificially discuss blockmirs are a link to the company web site and two patent applications, none of which can be considered reliable. Blockmirs are briefly mentioned in PMID 21241758 ("antagomir (also called anti-miR) or blockmir"). Hence parts of this article could potentially be merged into Antagomir. Boghog (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, agree to merge into Antagomir and redirect ... Reo ⁺ 18:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Boghog (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to antagomir - the current article is simply promotional. -- Scray (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Expendables_2#Sequel. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables 3 (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 is about a film that is well before filming, and presents rumor and speculation as fact in terms of casting. Fails WP:NFF. Not even in Preproduction. WP:TOOSOON. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obviously fails WP:NFF. Would have preferred to see a speedy redirect though rather than having to wait for the AfD! Not sure how good any of the information is - most of the citations are just links to rumours to stir up publicity for the second film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do a speedy redirect, either way better to make it official IMO so you have something to point to if someone decides to revert war over restoring the content. I assume since it clearly fails in every regard an admin could be asked to close early? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate per TOOSOON. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Expendables 2 – Sequel per the notability guidelines for future films. A stand-alone article is warranted if filming begins as planned. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (2013 film) (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)

New film that has not started shooting yet. Fails WP:NFILM. Disputed prod noq (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being TOO SOON. Article is premature, as even it tells us "Film's shooting will be start after releasing Jeet's next movie Deewana.". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just too soon to have an article. Unless there is enough coverage of it at the moment, it's too soon. No prejudice against recreation once release is near. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Bloodworth (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)

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA --TreyGeek (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to try to argue to keep this article because technically he does fail the current notability. However, this is a situation where I wish people would use some common sense. He has 2 of his 3 fights, I haven't seen anything about him being cut after his last loss, so there is a high probability that he will get that 3rd fight to obtain notability in the next few months. We can't force you to stop nominating guys like him, but some of us don't understand what the motive is for trying to delete so many articles, especially guys like this that will be almost certainly be notable in a few months. I can't force you to use some common sense, so I copied this article. If they decide to delete it, somebody please remind me that I have a copy of it saved so we can repost it when he gets that third fight. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. --LlamaAl (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need. You can ask for a WP:REFUND and the edit history will be preserved. Poison Whiskey 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Parsons (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 signs of notability. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about the IMDB listing? BO | Talk 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's hard to find sources for a person whose group was active in the 70's, at a time when the Philippines was a dictatorship, under martial law, print media was controlled, and when the internet didn't exist yet. Any coverage about Hagibis is probably either not online, in an archive somewhere, or lost. However, I can see two articles from the Manila Bulletin that are primary about Parsons, so that's enough for me to establish notability. Note that his crime was from around 2005, so expect that at least some coverage will be gone due to link-rot. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless better sources can be found. Something establishing notability as a performer. FurrySings (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There is also coverage here in 2002 in The New York Times describing him as a "Philippine action-film star" and this in the South China Morning Post saying he is a "film star". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Highly possible that there are print sources in the Philippines. I've had the same issues with some older Indonesian singers (Titiek Puspa comes to mind... almost nothing on her early career some sixty years ago) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Astronomy, Belgrade (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)

De-PRODded by article creator. Not notable. Academic departments are rarely notable and this one is not an exception. No independent sources, tagged for notability since May 2012. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nominator already said what I was going to when I saw the title of the AfD: "Academic departments are rarely notable and this one is not an exception." The lack of independent and in-depth sources points up the lack of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gave it shot, but doesn't have enough coverage. AstroCog (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NAC - Speedily deleted per A1. ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

លក្ខណៈសម្បត្តិមេដឹកនាំ (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)

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. Given that the only English text on this page is "Numbered list item" and "Indented line", I wonder if this might even be a test page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Foreign language article that has not been translated. I do not know what any of text really states, but perhaps this is a test page per its little English context of "Numbered list item" and "Indented line". TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no-one is prepared to translate it. The content seems very similar to km:លក្ខណៈសម្បត្តិមេដឹកនាំ and I think this may be an A2 candidate. Hut 8.5 19:47, 30 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. KTC (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referenspris (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)

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I wrote at Pages needing translation into English, I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of the article, or I would have translated it. It's about the "reference price" attached to healthcare treatments in the Swedish healthcare reimbursement system (the article links to sv:Högkostnadsskydd, which might be more useful to us, but there is probably some non-country-specific article the content could go into) and contains an essay segment about a governmental reform to the system with respect to dental care. The larger topic of how medical treatment is reimbursed and prices set for such reimbursement within the Swedish and other socialised medicine systems is definitely notable, and I can see the relevance within such an article of disputes over these decisions, but not on such a micro scale as this article. In other words it's neither a matter of its being written in Swedish - I or someone else could fix that - nor of there not being sources available (I'm sure news sources and government publications exist) but of the independence of the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two days later, the editor took the advice on their talk page and created the same article on Swedish Wikipedia; it has since been moved and rewritten to be about the dental reform. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on the length of time it has sat there without a translation, and Yngvadottir's rationale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't read it. Seems to be an ad (talks about 3000 Kroner). JFW | T@lk 00:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 Social Networks (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)

Most probably unrecoverable directory of indiscriminate links. Quite possibly a Search engine optimization exploit: See GNews hits for paucity of mentions in mainstream print and online media. Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to List of social networking websites (just sort that one by the last column), likely promotional, and possibly a joke (the main warning sign being the use of "Interweb"). --BDD (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh (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 for the writings of a graduate student. Based on the previous afds, it is possible that the subject is notable, but almost all references are to his own writings, including you-tube links to his speeches. There has been no improvements since the previous afds. Had this not been to AfD before, I would have considered it for G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided He seems to meet WP:GNG, however he doesn't seem all that notable to me. Also as stated above it does come off as promotional WP:IMPARTIAL that is the only real problem I have with the article. I could be reading into the tone of the article too much. (and please don't WP:SOFIXIT me) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would have fixed it if I thought it possible, but the promotionalism is too pervasive DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. There is enough material. Will take care of it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK. Added a significant source and cut out some passages so that the article would fall within the boundary of the sources. Guess that should do it. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question Dear Iranhumanwatch: You indicate that you added a significant source. I reviewed the diff file which shows that you added multiple refs/sources. Can you please specify which one(s) you consider WP:RS, thank you ? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, as I have tried to concentrate on third-party sources in my revision of the article, I brought in IUP Newsletter, which I consider an important source in English. The piece by Young Journalist’s Club in Iran was already there, and I just brought in a specific quotation from it. As I thought the responses to his articles by the Islamic-Republic opposition figures outside Iran were also important, I specifically quoted them in the revision. In addition to these, there were YouTube links that in my opinion did establish or at least demonstrate his notability, but were not considered RS exactly because they were on YouTube. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iranhumanwatch: Thank you for replying. "Important" sources and "significant" sources can certainly support an article. I want to try to give the article its best chance. In considering all articles, I do my best to identify a source, either already within the present article's text or that can be added, that meets the citation standards of WP:RS as a specific benchmark. "Important" and "significant" sources may or may not meet the more stringent requirements usually sought by WP:RS. The usual thought process on Wikipedia is that such "important" and "significant" sources are not irrelevant, and that they can sometimes support article expansion, but nonetheless they may sometimes be less than the threshold needed to "bedrock" an article, unless other special criteria pertain. Do you have anything published by an English-language, edited national press, or something from an accredited city or regional news source, or anything from an academically peer-reviewed review? In essence, do I understand correctly that you judge the IUP L and C Program Newsletter (page 11) citation as presently being the source that most closely meets the WP:RS threshold that we would collectively prefer? Or is one of the cited opposition figures of such reknown (if so, who, please) that his comments are of greater impact? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your hairsplitting method. That is what I really like. However, what I prefer is that other Persian-speaking editors who are informed about politics in and on Iran could come in and give their opinion; because at the moment I feel that I am the only source of information on an article I am defending, which is not that scientific. Anyway, I do consider the IUP Lit&Crit Newsletter an important source. In addition, of the opposition figures I quoted, Esmail Nooriala, is certainly important, as he is the leader of a party (Green Seculars Party) and is the editor in chief of a widely-read website (New Secularism). Reza Talebi is also well-known with regard to ethnic debates in Iran, and has written numerous articles on that topic. Naser Karami is of relative importance, as he only writes occasionally. Golshan is even less important than Karami, and Rokhsani is not that important. But, I did find something which is peer-reviewed: his article, Democracy or Decadence? A Cultural Aside to the "Golden Age" of the Pahlavi Monarchy in Iran, as it is mentioned in the article, "was first published in Popular Culture Review, Volume 23, no. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 85-93. It is republished here courtesy of its editor, Dr. Felicia F. Campbell of University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV)." Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor: 1. I will give due attention to the sources you've identified, one by one, as I am able, over the next few days. (note to reviewing admin: this is likely to take me at least 3-5 days, but I will go thru all this bit by bit, and get back here.) 2. Dear editor, are we completely correct in understanding that you are not the subject of this WP:BLP and that you are not closely affiliated to him ? Thank you so much for confirming this explicitly, or for revealing any potential conflict of interest. 3. Are you aware of any sister wikipedia article in any language that covers this subject? If so, can you please point (by link) to that, as I would like your help in being sure that modifications of spelling and transliteration / style do not have us miss any such foreign language article. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FeatherPluma, thank you for your concern. Your Point 1 was not addressed to me, and the answer to your Point 3 is no, there is no Wikipedia article on the subject in any other languages. In response to your Point 3, however, I must say that I am neither the subject of the article nor am I closely affiliated with him, but I certainly do have an interest in what he says and writes to have taken up the burden of composing this article on him. Therefore, I cannot say that I am completely "neutral;" but I have tried to be as objective as possible by bringing in various material both by the subject and third-party sources. Hope that clarifies. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just realized that his analytic article, Decline of the Discourse of the Left in Iran, has also been published on a number of important leftist Persian websites such as The Union of People's Fedaian of Iran, Kar Online (Work Online), Akhbar Rooz (Daily News), Tarhino (belongs to the Provisional Committee of the Leftist Socialists of Iran), and Ranginkaman which is not leftist, but publishes all kinds of articles. Like this, I guess I'd better mention it in the body of the article as well. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 12:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate the answers and update. Once I have addressed some year-end chores I'll get to work on things. Happy New Year ! FeatherPluma (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completed lengthy, detailed review. See final careful thoughts below, in date sequence at current end of comment list. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G11/Delete Article is almost entirely promotional and does not provide factual information relating to the subject's notability in a neutral fashion. After two previous AfDs, reliable sources discussing the subject in detail remain absent. English language sources are almost entirely primary, a lot of the foreign language sources look like blogs, and the prevalence of Youtube links in the last AfD make me wonder how this was kept. Ray^Talk 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly nowhere near WP:Prof. There is not enough substance for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• How can you judge so surely about the subject's insignificance when even a Persian search on him has not been included in this entry for deletion? And how can you be so sure that "a lot of foreign language sources look like blogs" when you apparently cannot read them? This is not a scientific approach, and if the deletion of this article is going to be based on such sweeping judgments, it will first and foremost demonstrate an ethnocentric attitude on the part of some editors. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I can't decide yet which way to vote on this case, but I am sure that it's nowhere close to Speedy or G11 -- there are many reasonable assertions of notability in the article that are not purely promotional (and as DGG points out, an subject that has passed AfD once cannot be considered for Speedy except for continual recreation of deleted content). The subject does not meet WP:PROF, but might meet GNG depending on the significance of the sources supporting the assertions in the article. Iranhw is correct in pointing out that there is a Western bias on Wikipedia that is well-documented and that we need to work to overcome. Part of overcoming that will need to take place in first having more well-cited articles about reliable sources on Iranian academic journals, newspapers, prizes, etc., so that editors can have help in making their determinations. I'll be following the debate and checking back on the article and its sources over the next couple of days, so if more sources (or quotations from the sources already listed that asserting the subject's significance) can be found, I will vote Keep; as it is, I lean more towards deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Michael Scott Cuthbert, for your fair judgment. The point is, the subject is well-known enough in the Persian-speaking sphere not to need sources to show his notability. That is why I mostly concentrated on his ideas. That's also what is usually done in Wikipedia with regard to people who are well-known in the West. For example, nobody will ask you to produce evidence why George Lucas (no comparison intended) is notable, and the article on him will mostly concentrate on his work instead. However, it seems that the case does not hold for notable non-Western subjects. As such, I think I must recast the article, using inline citations from the sources that already exist. But it will take some time, as I will have to rewrite the article and also translate material from Persian to English. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Reza Parchizadeh the same person as Azad Azadeh? I'm confused about the purpose of citation 5, is it to show that he is a blogger? -- cnn.com in general is a reliable source that would help establish notability (though iReport is not since it is user created), but the article linked to does not mention Reza Parchizadeh at all. I've looked through all the sources now and I can't see anything that would be considered an RS as defined by Wikipedia. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Azadeh is not Reza Parchizadeh. It is an alias for the blogger Abbas Khosravi Farsani who was arrested by the Islamic Republic and condemned to serving a term, and whom Parchizadeh defended by writing articles in Persian. Since this cnn.iReport account is Parchizadeh’s, it is likely that he wrote this piece as well. As for RS, I have done my best. Young Journalists’ Club is a reliable source within Iran, and you can see that its piece on Parchizadeh-Pahlavi has been published on a number of other websites. This old Tehran University blog has also addressed him as a student and scholar. The YouTube films (which I elided in accordance with Wikipedia regulations) were good sources for his notability, for they were organizational films recorded by Tehran University. I also found out that he has interviewed the exile Iranian film critic, Amir Ezati, on page 14 of the same IUP Newsletter, though telling not much about himself. In the end, this fact must be taken into consideration that since he is in opposition, finding reliable sources on him on websites located in Iran is almost impossible. What you saw was what I could find so far. Thank you for your patience and scientific approach, anyway. Iranhumanwatch ( talk ) 05:30, 21 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even a limited search in English suggests that this person is a culturally significant intellectual. groupuscule (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once his own publications are removed, not much is left. If after all this time his very active supporters here cannot come up with any evidence of notability, then there simply is none. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 28 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, Michig (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG ukexpat (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Ukexpat & Randykitty. In addition, the article is promotional, per DGG & Ray. GregJackP Boomer! 19:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have examined the article's sources very carefully, and some might be "significant" or "important" enough to possibly serve as sources for expansion (but not "bed-rocking") of a general, non-BLP, article. To that extent, the deletion / redaction of the scholarship and work effort that has gone into to this article completely engenders my empathy. However, the subject of this BLP does not presently meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Although I suspect that that is probably a matter of time, WP is not WP:CRYSTAL. The language at the BLP reliable sources guideline raises the general benchmark of the Wikipedia principle of verifiability in a BLP. I obtained the assistance of a Persian / Farsi speaker, as challenged. None of the sources can be fairly characterized as convincingly meeting WP:RS. The issue here isn't whether the article is well written, or interesting to some extent, or could be submitted for magazine review, as it clearly meets those benchmarks in my opinion, but rather the technical issue of not having good WP:RS. The BLP reliable sources guideline reads, "... material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources..." It is perhaps mildly telling that a line of enquiry discloses no article in any sister Wikipedia, which is slightly (but not irreconcilably) at odds with assertions that the Persian-language community is pressingly familiar with the subject of the BLP. (This in itself is absolutely not a point of elimination, just a minor consideration.) For thoroughness, another avenue of investigation was a detailed review of the previous AfDs. Within this line of review, I found that a component element in the previous reasoning for article retention was the erroneous conflation of this article's BLP subject with someone who had "notoriety as a former dictator's son", who was mentioned in news reports. I would speculate that this mistake arose from either a good faith mistranslation(s) or mistaken identity. Of course, in fact, Reza Pahlavi is not the same person as Reza Parchizadeh. In summary, there is a consensus running through all three AfDs, particularly here, with editors recurrently looking for threshold-meeting WP:RS, and, despite suggestions, none actually has emerged to date. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn Bailey (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)

Although covered in some local affiliate media, this musician lacks the significant coverage necessary to meet WP:BIO. The article was created by the subject's publicist who stated on the talk page that "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Gavyn is making his way through the business and many people should know his story. This is a way to get him there!)" --Skrelk (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the other hand, the sources are good and substantial, see CBS News [8], CoastLine Pilot [9], OC Weekly [10] and maybe the others listed here. But I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with the US pop culture to say keep or delete. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsigned musician. Fluff coverage does not grant notability. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. In addition, promotional and autobiographical. Safiel (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Purged useless and spam links. All the remaining links are of a purely local nature. Safiel (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, local coverage only, not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Considering he played for his club when they were still technically a Malaysian Premier League club he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the MPL is not considered fully-pro on WP:FPL and he fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Kessel, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. The only reliable sources I can find are those that confirm his death. Sincere condolences to his family and friends, but unless he received reliable coverage in his lifetime, then I don't see how he is notable. The sources in the article appears to be nothing more than obituaries. Also, if there is coverage for his supermarket chain, then make an article about that and merge any information about him to that article. As a sign of respect, if anyone finds any reliable sources about him from before he died, I will withdraw this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Kessel Foods. I found a source verifying the beginnings of the grocery chain. This source and this also give more historical info on the chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a search for "Al Kessel" in Google News found several years' worth of coverage regarding both Al Kessel and his supermarket chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But are most sources about the supermarket chain rather than about Kessel? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it does mention Al, but overall, they seem to be more about the chain than its founder, which is why I suggested that the article be moved to Kessel Foods or something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]