Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Agents (animated series)[edit]

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

Complete hoax. Found absolutely no sources verifying that this exists. Deprodded without comment by IP. G3 was declined on a similar article (Gadget Boy (2013 TV series)) due to not being "blatant", so I wasn't sure if this was G3-able. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember doing a search for sources and finding nothing. I did find references to the original show this is supposed to be based on, but this specific animated adaptation? No. There just aren't any sources that actually talk about this in any context. The only ones I can find that mention an animated adaptation are junk hits that will mirror whatever you type in and one or two mentions on sites where anyone can edit, such as this Wikipedia article. If it is actually in development, nobody is really talking about it, which is strange considering that it's only about 5-6 months away from being released. Normally most companies will start releasing PR and whatnot about potential shows around this time, if not earlier. (Which makes it suspicious that some random person would know this many details about the show.) Even if it's not a hoax and CN is being unusually quiet, there still isn't enough to show that this adaptation is notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find anything either. Corn cheese (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for sources and conclude WP:BULLOCKS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 21 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 withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Illusionism (philosophy)[edit]

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

This surprisingly old article appears to have started out as a redirect to an article about magic. At some point it was redirected to an illusionism article about art and then finally was given its basic current content from a contributor who has neither before or since made any further contributions, nor provided any sources. Essentially this is a mix of lacking notability, verifiability, and possibly a case of original research. The term ‘illusionism’ is itself a rhetorical device used in many different contexts (just look at a Google ‘books’ search). I could only find two standard g-search results using ‘Illusionism’ with the article's definition and both appear to be a reflection of the Wikipedia article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ The American Heritage dictionary has an entry for it " In Philosophy: The doctrine that the material world is an immaterial product of the senses." Likewise, the Dictionary of Philosophy by Dagobert D. Runes has this definition, Illusionism: The view that the spatial-temporal external world is merely a veil of māyā, a phantasmagoria. Not only is everything illusion, deception, appearance, but existence itself has no real value. ( Schopenhauer.)
I'm on the fence for notability, but as a philosophical term this is verifiable. Them From Space 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's something else. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G, who just gave me quite the lesson in article rescue. Them From Space 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Free will#Free will as an illusion. The idea that free will is an illusion is already discussed in the article Free will. You could argue it is a notable topic (e.g.[1]) and if someone wanted to expand this, I'd suggest renaming to "Illusionism (free will)": the term seems to have other meanings in other branches of philosophy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's something else, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look! I get to do another philosophy article. I didn't have to Kerrrzappp! this one, though. That is because the single-edit contributor was pretty much entirely right. Your searches for sources would have fared better, Buddy23Lee, had you had the nous to read the books whose titles told you that they were about philosophy and free will. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will is there for the taking, for example. Smilansky's thesis is right there in the books and journals, discussed both by him and by various other professors of philosophy over the past twelve years. And this article is a stub with good context that has ample scope for expansion, since it has far from exhausted even just Lenman alone on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point Uncle G, for I only held enough scant nous to realize that putting this article up for deletion created a substantial chance of inspiring some industrious gent such as yourself to further develop it in a way that its aging template messages could never do. This is always preferable to having a pathetic article deleted, but either way. I must say sir, good work! You surpassed my expectations. Now that it’s been expanded I have no impetus to keep the bid for deletion and will retract it. Thanks again everyone. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:34, 18 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Two?[edit]

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

Blatant nonsense Bleaney (talk) 23:34, 17 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) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Izzat Khatab[edit]

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

Not notable. Only one source, no GNews, GBooks, or GHits other than social media. Second ref is self-published blog. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Syria For All needs to be considered at the same time for deletion. It is a copyvio of this site, word for word translation from Arabic, tagged for CSD-G12, copyvio removed by another editor, copyvio restored by IP, tagged and page blanked for copyvio, speedily deleted as G11, recreated as copyvio by page creator (who also created Mohamad Izzat Khatab). Only one source, no GNews, GBooks, or GHits other than social media. Second ref is self-published blog. Third source is Facebook. GregJackP Boomer! 12:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no assertion of notability per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ORG respectively, unreferenced, promotional tone. Can't find anything about them online in English from WP:Reliable sources. If there are reliable sources in Arabic demonstrating notability, then I might change my vote to "keep and improve", but there's not much worth keeping so far. Altered Walter (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- problematic behavior - the s.p.a. who created both these articles removed the AfD tag and others, then re-added the copyright violations. They've been blocked as spam-only. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andagoya[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable village per WP:GEOLAND but what I really don't like about the article it that the village is described as having the "chief claim to fame is its spectacularly monotonous climate" and "...being monotonously hot, Andagoya is also monotonously wet...". These disparaging opinions (is it unreferenced) has been here since March 2004! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious and speedy keep The nominator has violated the deletion policy by failing to read and do what's required per WP:BEFORE. A source for the existence of this village was so easily findable that anyone who cared and did some investigating before nominating would have found it. I can only assume he didn't bother. As to the content of the article - it's miserable, but miserable content is never an excuse for deletion; it's an invitation to improve the article; read WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate: [it] appears to be a non-notable village per [[WP:GEOLAND]. This shows that I followed WP:BEFORE. I investigated possible sources and they appear to indicate that is was too small a community to justify a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All villages are notable; if you read WP:OUTCOMES as you claim to have (following WP:BEFORE), you'd have known that your nomination is disruptive and cannot succeed. I suggest you withdraw it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator appears not to have read even the first sentence of the guideline section that he cites, which is clear that size is not a determiner of notability of a community. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also exists as a gazetteer; also keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 21 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) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breckenwood[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources, with one student newspaper ref & one internet ref, the rest are social media or sites to sell their music. Declined CSD. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless much better refs turn up, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather a bit soon for an article given their output and lack of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 21 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. Michig (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Alli[edit]

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

He did make two FA Cup appearances for Milton Keynes Dons, but neither of the two were against a fully pro club so he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I can't find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 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 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per... everyone, really. Agree with GS above - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Stalwart111 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or in a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro leagues, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should be who the player plays for that confers notability, not who they're against, otherwise it's ridiculously unfair and arbirtary. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, WP:NFOOTBALL is about who the player plays for (a team in a fully professional league), not who they play against. In this instance, the subject has played no games for the club, except for a 25 min stint in a cup game against an amateur side. That's not considered a "professional league" for the purposes of WP:NFOOTBALL. Let's face it, this is obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON - the kid will get a run in the new season; his profile on the team site basically guarantees as much. But right now, he's not considered notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Stalwart111 22:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's far from arbitrary. Clubs are far more likely to try young, and otherwise unnotable players against weaker opposition than they would in the league matches explicitly covered by WP:NSPORT, to say nothing of the fact that the early rounds of national cup competitions when fully pro clubs can play against non-fully pro opposition inevitably receive less coverage than the later rounds when (usually) only fully pro clubs are involved. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three editors in agreement to delete should not have resulted in a relisting, the fact remains this player has not competed at a notable level and thus fails policies as detailed above. C 679 09:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:14, 24 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. Jreferee (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nosratallah Khakian[edit]

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

Not notable, weak references that do little to establish notability. Since the Farsi wikipedia page was deemed non-notable (AFD page is here) we're left with no compelling reason to keep a page up on English wiki. Hairhorn (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've done what I could to improve this article. The original was a mess, being translated from Persian by a new user who did not understand the various templates. There are still problems with the translation I was not able to clear up, such as the subjects exact name. I don't think I'll miss it if/when it goes.--Auric 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- These are tricky to remove from Persian Wikipedia article Mr. N. dirt and Iran are enemies. These are the spies who want to name who does not work and actions and he did not look like there is not any. So the first article in the Persian Wikipedia Najvanrdanh N. earthy and unlike real policy removed the wiki now to remove this article are in English. If this is not the case because they involved the English Wikipedia! Please consider this matter will be considered.Paper [N. dirt]] is a notable and reliable sources but unfortunately some Persian Wikipedia administrators are instructed not to allow anyone who does not think it will stay in Clearwater. That is why they are involved in the English Wikipedia. It is hoped that this material will influence the final decision.Thanks Kamran1370 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Kamran1370 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Huh? "dirt" appears to be a machine translation of "Khakian", no idea what is meant by "Clearwater". The talk of "spies" is bizarre at best, are all the "delete" votes in the AFD from spies? Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

بماند- سلام جناب آقای هیرهورن! استناد به نظر خواهی ویکی پدیای فارسی اصلاً منطقی نیست. من که گفتم آن ها برخلاف معیارهای ویکی پدیا و مغرضانه مقاله ی نصرت اله خاکیان را حذف کردند و به این هم قانع نشده به سراغ مقاله ی انگلیسی آمده اند تا آن را هم حذف کنند.Kamran1370 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation: Stay - Dear Mr. Hyrhvrn! Persian Wikipedia is not logical at all, according to the poll. They told me that unlike Wikipedia standards and biased article by N. remove dirt and failed to convince the English papers have come to know so they can remove it.--Auric 14:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 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 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I can't find anything in the article that meets Creative or Prof guidelines, and without other evidence I give wide latitude to the delete result of the Farsi AfD vote. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - this article in its sources and its owner is known.Kamran1370 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you can not claim the Persian Wikipedia. They are enemies and Preparing the soil with N..2.185.208.62 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC) — 2.185.208.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck though duplicate vote; no reason to think the IP vote isn't also a duplicate, particularly since they are one of the participants in the outrageous amount of vandalism on this page. Hairhorn (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - it is quite obvious that this person is well-known and reputable sources. We should not blindly imitate the Persian Wikipedia articles to delete. Thanks.Bekham17 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

struck obvious sock vote, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamran1370. Hairhorn (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per apparent fail of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:PROF does not apply, as the subject is a high school teacher. I note that this is a repost - my previous comment was removed by an IP address, so closer beware. Ray^Talk 20:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is deemed non-notable in the Farsi language and there is next to no English refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 21:52, 24 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Barrera[edit]

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

Career minor-league player see here. Fails WP:ATHLETE. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like he didn't play in 2012. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources, which are already in the article, establish GNG. The article requires expansion that utilizes those sources, not deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, two of the external links are local newspapers from where he went to High School (one about his being drafted, one about a game he pitched in), the Kansas City Star is just saying he got added to the 40-man roster, one is from MLB.com (not independent for notability establishment), the last one is the only thing close, a report on his MRI. For me, this isn't enough to meet the GNG, but that is just my opinion, others opinions will (and do) differ. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - MLB.com is independent of MLB, as noted by the disclaimer at the bottom of every MLB.com story: "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." Along with the other stories, it provides in depth coverage of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe one story at MLB.com based on a procedural move, a story about an injury, and a couple stories from his local paper is enough to meet GNG for Barrera, but you voted "Delete" on Cristian Guerrero (pending AfD) despite the greater amount of coverage of him? (I'm not trying to give Muboshgu a hard time. I'm just trying to figure out his AfD standards. Also, I wish there was a lot more attention paid to newly created pages, which would probably result in us having fewer AfD battles. Barrera's page has been here four years. It shouldn't have been here four days if it didn't clearly pass GNG when started.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can see different cases differently. I explained at that AfD that I felt that article is just short of the line, which is partly for WP:INHERITED reasons, while this is not an overwhelming pass, but just on the passing side of the fence. YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Muboshgu's explanation and rationale.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league player. Alex (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the level of coverage satsifies GNG on this guy. Spanneraol (talk) 22:37, 16 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 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I dislike voting to delete a page that was probably created in good faith, just about every professional baseball player has gotten at least as much media coverage as the sources listed in this article. If a couple of hometown stories and a couple of stories about procedural moves are enough to satisfy GNG, then 99 percent of MiLB players pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is coverage. Local coverage counts the same. Saying "99 percent of MiLB players pass GNG" is factually inaccurate based on the number of successful AfDs and PRODs brought on MiLB players who don't have the level of coverage Barrera has. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of MiLB players has never been featured in his hometown newspaper(s) and/or never been mentioned in a MiLB game story, press release or notes column? I doubt it's more than one percent. Whether it's in the player's hometown paper(s), college paper or the papers in the player's MLB and/or MiLB cities, multiple stories and press releases are issued every time a drafted player signs with an MLB team. If this is the new bar for GNG, we shouldn't even bother with these AfDs. Almost every MiLB player, especially those from the U.S., is likely to pass. (Remember, even the worst MiLB players were probably all-stars in their hometown, which means they received years of coverage as high school and/or college athletes before they even got to professional baseball.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only significant coverage I see of the player is this. Everything else is routine coverage that minor leaguers routinely get, and it seems like his career ended when he hurt his arm, so he unlikely to go back to the Major Leagues. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N, and just falls short on WP:GNG. Secret ^account 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPARC & Breastfeeding[edit]

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

Pure advocacy. The subject is probably notable, but the article would need to be rewritten from scratch with a NPOV. It might be better to move some of the sources and material to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan, which badly needs it. Please note the discussion at ANI with respect to conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a personal soapbox essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:GREATWRONGS.~~ I mean, per WP:NOR. Killer Chihuahua 10:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per proposer, however we ought to convey to the creator what is wrong in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPARC is notable, and thus could have an article, in which various SPARC efforts can be detailed. The subject of this article is not notable and thus the vote.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of those instances where it is better to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just start over. Advocacy essay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am going to be assisting the user in creating a new article on SPARC. I'll just be salvaging the usable stuff from this article and the others. Please don't snowball close and delete for at least 24 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the necessity, you could save the code in a text file, or put it in a sandbox, am I wrong? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess, but it looks terrible then. Anyways, all the 'delete' votes thus far are totally wrong I think. If I weren't already in the process of rewriting it (instead of moving and rewriting it which would screw up this AFD) all the comments seem to be delete not because of valid sources or notability, but because of non-encyclopedic writing. This is particularly concerning for me as a quick Google search yields plenty of information on the topic. Specifically, that no fault according to WP:DEL-REASON is present. Rather then fix something, you rather delete it? Since I'm not going to disrupt the process, I've just begun some work on another page Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, taking from one AFC and current subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trout all the delete !votes based on writing style or that it isn't written like an article. Valid sources cited, passes GNG, the rest is fixable. --No unique names 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 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 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, Merge content there Delete this title (unlikely search term anyway). I see ChrisGualtieri has already created the necessary merge target (great work!). The "subject" is notable, an article is justified but the title is rubbish, that's all. Looks like a perfectly good faith effort to create an article about the SPARC which seems like an entirely worthwhile endeavour. Stalwart111 23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or userfy so the editor who created the article can add some of the content to other suitable articles, including the newly created Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stalwart's comment. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 21:50, 24 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 to delete this material. Reasons for deletion cited include a lack of notability and BIO1E. The lack of notability is addressed by Novangelis' response, a merge being preferred over deletion because of WP:ATD, and discussion about a merge can continue on the relevant talk pages if editors wish to pursue it. The 1E argument is addressed by Nixie9, whose point appears to be that having a disease is not really an "event". This is perhaps less than totally satisfactory, so I am uncomfortable with closing as "keep", but editors are clearly not in favour of deletion either. The debate has been relisted twice and attracted a reasonable amount of input. I consider that "no consensus" is the only available close.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Mark Tatum[edit]

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

Man with a nasty disease who briefly made some headlines before dying of an unspecified cause. WP:1E and of very limited enduring relevance. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UGH! (It had adequite coverage and adds to Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notability shown [[2]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - 1E applies, and the name could redirect to the disease (with mention there, perhaps). The encyclopedically notable aspect is the disease, not the person, as far as I can tell. -- Scray (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mucormycosis. The section is already there, and with a little cleanup (make the emphasis on it being a dramatically severe case, not a "notable" case), it should fit within the article.Novangelis (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 10 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 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable person. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 01:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, when you are famous for getting a terrible and deadly disease, you really only have time for WP:ONEEVENT, so it does not apply here. John Hinkley only had one event too!--Nixie9 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hinkley is not comparable, because his situation was unique and his life story is relevant to the event. In the case of the person in question here, he played a relatively passive role and is only one of many who have had this infection. -- Scray (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been showcased; no reason to delete. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:15, 24 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) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Trump[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the spurious reason that being the brother of Donald Trump means he is notable (notability is not inherited). Just another businessman. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be claiming notability based on being the brother of Donald. If there is other substantial coverage about Robert, I can't see any online. because he is still an active businessman I'd expect to find something if he was truly notable. Sionk (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 16 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - he is on the board of directors of ZeniMax Media, and the principal owner of BrandPartners, both of which are notable. Wikipeditor45 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2012 (PST)

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 Delcam. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PowerMILL[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Nominating on behalf of Stalwart111, who requested these to be listed in a separate discussion: "In all cases, most of the "sources" are actually just company press releases reprinted by tech sites or affiliates. The one or two articles about each product aren't, in my opinion, anywhere near enough coverage to justify WP:N. We've had a few CAM-spam company articles lately. Maybe someone told them WP was a good way to promote their products. More likely, one or two jumped on WP and created promo-spam articles and other followed so as not to be left out. I can accept that the "parent company" Delcam justifies an article. Perhaps each of the above should be merged into / redirected to Delcam? No need for each individual product to have an article. And keeping them just encourages those responsible for the above four to create articles for each of Delcam's 50 other non-notable products." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here to comment on the PowerMILL article. Unfortunately I'm unwilling to search for coverage about three different products. Though they have similarities, the articles seem to be sourced from different publications. My inclination is that the three articles seem to be poorly sourced and need clean-up to remove unsourced information. Some of the sources seem to have a very small circulation within the industry. Sionk (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks, Mark, for moving these out of the original AFD and into their own. I suppose my initial concern with these three still remains - each is supported by "sources" that range from re-prints of company press releases to papers on functionality written by company employees. There's one or two how-to guides but even they seem to have come from people connected to the company or at least people advised by people from the company. They (all three) seem like a perfect example of why we have WP:PRODUCT. Obviously the nomination is essentially my nomination so I wont !vote, but I suppose it would be fair to say that I wouldn't disagree with a Merge to Delcam, as I suggested in my original commentary. Stalwart111 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

merge into the company as the reasonable solution. If more material is found, it can be separated again. The merge should retain the key information, which I think would be all of the article here except the list of revisions. Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 8 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 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Delcam, as per DGG's suggestion 1292simon (talk) 00:51, 15 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect There is useful information in the Power(MILL|SHAPE|INSPECT) articles and merging them into the Delcam article, per DGG's arguments, is a good solution. I would also recommend a redirect for these terms to facilitate user search. Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Helaine Head. Content has already been merged into the target. I can't find an elegant way to perform a history merge, however. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Danger Team[edit]

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

Non-notable television show. No claim of notability. The extent of apparent of independent reliable coverage is "A ball of space goop crash-lands in a sculptor's studio. Naturally, he molds the goop into three figurines. The figurines come to life, but only the artist can see them. The artist and the goop men team up to go fight crime." Which is not enough and make no claim of significance. Nothing obvious in google. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found a few sources and have put them in the article, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is enough. The two reviews are great and definitely help towards notability, but the other three I'm not entirely happy with. They feel more trivial than anything else, especially the EW mention and the MWJS is behind a paywall so I can't see how in-depth the mention is so I'm going to count that as trivial as well. The Tuscaloosa News entry is three paragraphs, but it is also fairly brief. It's not just a press release, but neither is it so obviously in-depth that I'd absolutely say it counts towards notability. Even if it does, which could be argued either way, I'm not sure that 3 sources is really enough to show notability for a pilot that was only aired once.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is merge to Helaine Head a possibility? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's appropriate, since she did direct the piece. Her article is also overly short, so it'd be useful in fleshing out her article. I'll go work on that now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge into Helaine Head as Tokyogirl79 has beautifully done. — ^Wylie_Coyote 00:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge into Helaine Head 1292simon (talk) 00:49, 15 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that a history merge really is necessary in this case.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 murders in the United States[edit]

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

An unannotated list that is better served by Category:Murders in the United States by year. It is also an odd one out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DOAL. This is better served by a category. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better served as a category. --No unique names 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I attempted to engage the creator of this article in his talk page about the criteria under which he felt this list was eligible for inclusion, but I received no response. As with the other lists he created, clear case of WP:DOAL. Better served by categories. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reversing my !vote in light of the changes made to this list. I am still bothered by the title, since it seems to imply that it is a fully inclusive compendium of events when it is just a list of murders that have been deemed to be worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia under the notability guidelines. I am always happy to see information preserved, and I think my record proves that. My initial rationale for deletion here was made in good faith. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog, I am sorry I cannot find the time to address your concerns personally on my talk page. I am a (very) part-time editor, and find myself torn in too many directions. You seem to spend most of your time in deletion discussions so you may not understand where I am coming from, but my main focus right now is to try and save hundred of contributions to wikipedia that you and others are adamant about deleting for good. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. This list contains notable entries on a notable topic. The list could be expanded into a table giving more details (body count, location, etc). Yes, there is a category, but this is an aid to navigation too. Note that the nominator hasn't cited any policy that this list violates, or indeed explained what "an odd one out" means and how it is relevant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think policy can always be used to formulate an AfD argument. As for the "odd one out", that is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think it should be applied here. There is no other lists by year of murders in the US. Having the list also creates (in a small way) systemic bias and WP:RECENTISM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think policy can always be used to formulate an AfD argument." Well it must do. Read WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is not a policy or a guideline and it only says that they should be read and understood. Anyway, it begs the question: what comes first - the AfD or the policy/guideline formulation? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Room for expansion: adding dates, body count, etc, would be very useful. Everybody crowing WP:DOAL should explain which aspect of this policy applies and how it applies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that I've expaned the article as per my suggestion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extra info makes it a far better list but I still stand by my stance of deletion. I also would like to point out that there is no Murder in the United States article (it is a redir to Murder (United States law)). Such an article is a notable topic but here we are with a list of murders for only one particular year. Sigh, that is how WP works unfortunately. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category called Category:2012 murders in the United States. You guys are not actually reading WP:DOAL. You should. Question: What if there's a homicide case? Do we include it there, or does it fit just into a generic crime category? What about a notable case of manslaughter? And massacres? After all, they're also technically murder. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no problem with figuring out what goes in the category, why would we have a problem figuring out what goes in the list of the exact same name? And please spell out for everyone why you think WP:DOAL compels deletion here. You haven't demonstrated through explanation of how it applies that you've read it yourself; you've merely pointed to it. postdlf (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue about this endlessly; I believe the guideline is quite clear. I've provided my !vote and rationale. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. AFD is not WP:JUSTAVOTE, nor is a WP:VAGUEWAVE a "rationale." Try harder. Explain how that guideline section which describes weaknesses inherent to all lists, applies to this list in such a way that this list should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, What if there's a homicide case? Do we include it there, or does it fit just into a generic crime category? What about a notable case of manslaughter? And massacres? After all, they're also technically murder. What then, do we also include missing person cases that are suspected of murder? Do we list ongoing crime cases that have not been defined as murder? Do we list people who are merely accused of murder? Or maybe move it instead to 2012 crime events in the United States where one or more people lost their lives? Murder has a very specific legal meaning, but inclusion of articles in this list will likely be subject to vague criteria at best, as will the one that will surely be created for 2013, and 2011 and all the prior and future years. Instead of implying that I am using a guideline (not a policy) as an excuse to delete information from the encyclopedia when I am utilizing it as rationale for my !vote based on my interpretation of it, and implying that I don't understand how AFD works, I'd ask you to define for us what exactly you feel should go into this list, and what shouldn't, rather than just claiming it's useful. Would it had been better if I had quoted WP:LISTCRUFT instead, specifically points 7, 9 and 10? Because I prefer to avoid citing essays at AFDs, but that pretty much covers it for me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have no problem with figuring out what goes in the category, why would we have a problem figuring out what goes in the list of the exact same name?" postdlf (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"category" §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. The deletion argument that it is better served as a category is false per that template. The list certainly needs improvement, but that isn't a deletion argument. Ryan Vesey 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Vesey, you have voted Delete on another similar list also created by me and also nominated for deletion by user: Alan Liefting. Can you please explain why one list is a Keep while the other is a Delete. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list of article topics, as a complement to Category:2012 murders in the United States per WP:CLN. I see no substantive deletion arguments here, and so nothing that would override any of that. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly per Ryan. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improvement, but it surely satisfies WP:LISTPURP. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:25, 24 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. Michig (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Your Maker[edit]

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

Delete Meat Your Maker. This is an unsourced article on a TV show episode that does not really do anything except give a summary of the episode. No really reason is given why this episode is notable, or why it cannot just be covered in some part of the article on the series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unclear notability -RoseL2P (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nominator. Marokwitz (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:17, 24 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. Michig (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED technology[edit]

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

Plot only description of a topic which is not notable due to the absence of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 13:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I transwikied the full history, all 21.2 megabytes of it, to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_technology Dream Focus 03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is one of those situations where this is a sub topic of another notable topic. As a work of science fiction, the coverage of the main topic often delves into the scifi elements, which is what the list covers. There may well be reliable sources that provide more direct coverage, but they are hard to find in the sea of fan coverage. In the end, I think Wikipedia is better served keeping this list as a central point to condense merges and redirects about the various techs then it would be by deleting it. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is Not Inherited though and the article has been tagged with needing references for over a year now, in addition there is also the WP:NOTPLOT factor that you have not addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one place where a citation needed tag is at. And being tagged for needing references isn't a reason for delete, since most people just ignore those things anyway. This sort of fictional information can come from the primary source. Anything that doesn't can be deleted from the article. Anything that seems too detailed plot wise can be eliminated as well. No reason to delete the entire article though. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here include WP:Notability as well and this article has zero third party sources to back that up, if you want to put some of the important plot info into the plot on the main article I can see that as being fine but I dont see how this can be a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, if a list is spun out from an article it can inherit notability. This is similar in concept to how once a list of notable alumni from an institution gets too large, we spin it out into a new list. We don't require a section of an article to independently be notable, just as we don't require a spun out list to be. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the word "can", where is the evidence of this inherited notability? Right now the article is just detailed plot information filled with WP:FANCRUFT. Does the article have potential to be anything other than that without third party sources present? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there is a good likelyhood sources do exist, but have had no luck locating any particularly good ones. I understand the potential problem that fancrut can be, but I don't think its a problem when contained to one list. Now if it was a bunch of articles on the content of the current list, then its a bigger issue. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Looking over the template for this series, and reading through the article for it, it seems to be a notable work of fiction covering anime, manga, light novels, toys, video games, sequels and spin-offs. So this will help people understand the science fiction better. Dream Focus 17:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this argument grounded in policy ? Plot-only descriptions of fictional works are explicitly prohibited, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the series. Unless you can find reliable secondary sources which cover the scope of this article, there's no notability. Sure, this article provides the reader with additional information which will improve the reader's understanding of MSG SEED, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think the plot description in the very good article on Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is sufficient for encyclopeadic purposes. Your transwiki was appropriate - keeping this here is not. Claritas § 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a plot only article with absolutely no reliable and independent sourcing showing significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:48, 10 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is getting way too far from what WP is all about. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the same discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantis (Stargate). Ultimately, the article has no verifiable sources and because its very unlikely to find sources that meet WP:GNG, then the article should be deleted and subsequent information is readily available on other wiki's that do not require the same level of verification. Mkdw ^talk 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The level of plot detail without regard for sourcing or real-world significance makes this more appropriate for a fan wiki than Wikipedia. Them From Space 05:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; also (just like Atlantis), it is not verifiable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:18, 24 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. Complete analysis follows.

OK. Argument for deletion (distilled down) is:

Sources are all PR recitations, thus failing WP:N. (As a side point, an article based on these would also fail WP:V, although the nominator doesn't make this point).
Hasn't happened yet, so WP:CRYSTAL would preclude.
Coverage is routine, so WP:NEVENT applies.

Now, we go down the arguments.

Lukeno94 identifies two sources that he believes may qualify. Upon examination, both sources are really about Ronda Rousey, not UFC 157. No strong weight for this one either way.
Mdkw reaches for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and neglects to mention the other two future UFC events, neither of which have articles). No weight whatsoever.
Buickcenturydriver expresses an opinion, but provides no justification. No weight whatsoever.
LlamaAl points out this is the first female event, a fact of no interest in evaluating sourcing and policy. However, he also points out that the the "almost certain to exist" clause would preclude applying WP:CRYSTAL, but fails to consider notability as the prerequisite for that statement. This view has to be considered, weighting uncertain.
Moriori doesn't seem to grasp WP:CRYSTAL, so no weight.
Nouniquenames is pretty terse here. I'm going to have to assume he's simply supporting the WP:CRYSTAL based component of the nomination.
Mtking goes for the WP:NOT argument that the events typically have trouble with: lack of non-routine coverage for the UFC event.
Entity of the Void makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
Beansy makes an argument with no relevance to the debate.
Kudos to Odie5553. If everyone would argue like that, these debates wouldn't become the kind of clusterfuck that this one is. He does the best job of arguing the keep side of anyone in this debate. I'll consider this one carefully. The flaw in his argument is that he presumes that USA Today represents "diverse sources", so other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources.
Enric Naval basically summarizes what "routine coverage" means in this case, and he's got a solid case: since nearly every UFC article is basically an expansion of a fight card template, people need to find coverage that falls out of the fight card arena, or it's "routine coverage".
182.239.235.186 whines. No weight here.
TreyGeek makes a new delete argument: since the articles are only fight cards, and the fight card may change, why make the article before the event. Hard to weigh, but he's got a point.
174.3.198.16 finds a new source from USA Today.
Evenfiel makes no argument.
Errant confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia, so no real weight there. Affirms that he doesn't view the CRYSTAL argument as being convincing. For those that need more explicit summation, remember that arguments that read "It's the biggest shiniest vacuum cleaner ever, and it's got more attachments than any other" don't matter at AFDs. They are irrelevant.
SilverSeren confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia. No weight.
Courier00 makes no argument relevant to the discussion.
JonnyBonesJones confuses notability within the sport with notability within Wikipedia. No weight.
CasJer argues notability based on sources, but points at sources that are primarily about Carmouche and Rousey.
Sue Rangell makes no new argument.
Oskar Liljeblad makes a particularly bad argument.
Huskerdoo and Live Network Jack ignored as a part of the SPA/Sockpuppet crowd these things attract.
Uzma Gamal reiterates the routine coverage argument.
AutomaticStrikeout reiterates a bad argument.
JonnyBonesJones makes his second irrelevant argument.
198.160.139.1 makes no argument.
Claritas argues that it's routine coverage.
Willdawg111 reiterates a bad argument.
Zimmie08210 whines.
68.44.214.85 again confuses notability within the sport to notability within Wikipedia.
Luchuslu makes no argument.

So, in the end, the argument with the greatest policy based weight was that the coverage of the event is routine for this class of sports event. The efforts to refute that were flawed by two basic problems:

Most of the sources provided were focusing on Rousey and Carmouche, not on the umbrella UFC 157 event. I note that both fighters already have extensive article that include this material. It's been made clear multiple times that notability is not inherited, be it upwards, downwards, or sideways.
Treating USA Today as a completely independent source is problematic, as USA Today publishes MMAjunkie.com.

The efforts to refute WP:NOT#CRYSTAL hinged on finding UFC 157 notable in the first place, so the same problems with evaluating the notability of UFC 157 vs. the notability of Rousey and Carmouche apply.

The interrelationship between USA Today and MMAjunkie.com also weakens all arguments based on diversity of sources.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 157[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG. The citations speak as PR blurbs and therefore fail the "Independent of the subject" criterion. In addition, the event described in the article has yet to occur so we do not have any indication what may happen at the event, therefore WP:CRYSTAL applies in addition to WP:NTEMP as we cannot determine what enduring notability this event may have. In addition WP:NEVENT suggests "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." therefore it is appropriate by our own policies to Delete and Redirect with protection until such time that there is reasonable coverage to pass all of these objections. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:deny Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Speed keep per WP:SENSE as article clearly passes WP:N and WP:V due to coverage of this notable event in multiple WP:RS independent of the promotion. This event received newspaper coverage in USA Today nearly three months before it occurs due to the historic significance of the event. It features a TITLE FIGHT and not just any title fight but THE FIRST WOMEN'S TITLE FIGHT in the world's LARGEST MMA promotion in a GLOBALLY TELEVISED event. Frankly, toy say the first ever women's championship fight in the world's largest promotion is not notable is horribly sexist and to declare such mainstream sources as USA Today is blatantly ignorant. The nominator therefore either does not know what he is talking about or is flat out lying and as such, this insulting nomination violates WP:DICK, WP:TEND,and WP:TROLL. To be blunt, anyone who would want this article deleted is a moron. That is not some opionated personal attack, but a statement of fact. The first event in the most significant league of any sport to feature a women's championship bout is unquestionably notable per common sense. Period. If someone actually tries to argue otherwise, then they know nothing about gender and sports studies. This milestone moment in women's athletic history is of great interest to not just MMA fans, but academics of feminist history. This is probably the most ridiculous and laughable afd I have ever seen in my long-time of reading this site. Enough to make me register an account just to comment here. For fuck's sake, use a little common sense! The nominator should be banned from MMA related discussions for the same reason why an infant would be banned from editing here. Pure ignorance, or pure dishonesty. --Common Sense MMA (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef Banned sock [3][reply]

Not a valid Speedy Keep reasoning. WP:SENSE is a subset of WP:IAR. The problem with that is that my following the rules is not harming wikipedia. The invocation of WP:IAR is harming Wikipedia. The claim of a women's championship is not sourced, and therefore can't contribute to the notability for the article. Furthermore your personal attacks are not tolerated at all. I notice that you regisered only 1 minute before you found your way here to rant and extrude your vile attacks. The closing admin will consider your posting as nothing but a WP:ILIKEIT argument, so please see your way out of this debate. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get another hobby and stop vandalizing Wikipedia with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-arguments. Proof that Hasteur is full of it and has lazily or dishonestly violated WP:BEFORE: "Ronda Rousey meets Liz Carmouche in first UFC women's title fight" by Dan Stupp, USA TODAY Sports, says, "The first female fighters, the first female championship headliner, and the organization's first openly gay fighter have all joined the world's largest mixed martial arts promotion." As the link shows, this article has been picked up by other presses such as The Detroit Free Press. Knock off the sexist and homophobic deletionism already. Mainstream newspapers, not me, but mainstream newspapers point out that it is 1) the first female champion headliner; 2) the first openly gay fighter; 3) the first female fighter; 4) in the world's largest MMA promotion; 5) it is televised globally; 6) it already covered in mainstream press due to these gender significant aspects of a freaking title fight. Stop lying already or start walking! It took all of three seconds to look this stuff up. Do you really have such disregard for your fellow editors that you don't think they can use Google?! --Common Sense MMA (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef banned sock [4][reply]

Vandalism has a very specific definition here at Wikipedia. WP:BEFORE is a suggestion and not a requirement. I've asked you before to not sling personal attacks and you did it again. WP:BURDEN states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. therefore it is not my responsibility to improve the article before I make a judgement if it's reasonable to keep. You have already been reported to WP:ANI for your personal attacks and malformed reasoning. Please read WP's rules and use them correctly. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know instead of whining like a crybabby at ANI, why don't you be an adult and apologize for lying? In the same amount of time it to you to create a discussion about deleting notable content, which in some warped way of non-thinking is more worthwhile to you than actual information..., you could have found the sources disproving your bogus claim that this event is not notable. Instead of taking a minute to find a source from a mainstream source that demonstrate's this event's significance as the first time EVER that an openly gay person as well as a woman will fight for a championship in the largest league or a major international sport, you start a discussion about that article that just waste's time and thin bitch and moan on some admin board. Again, your actions are reprehensible and if you were really here to build an encyclopedia, you would have instead used your time to improve an obviously worthwhile article of historical relevance concerning feminist achievements and gay rights, in addition to its significance in sports history due to a title being contested. If you want me or anyone else to talk nice to you, then you need to earn that and write honestly instead of insulting our intelligence by making false claims about stuff that anyone can verify through reliable sources in but instances. If you really wanted to set a positive example, why not be a leader and find the information that I easily found and improved the article? Or do you actually want Wikipedia to instead be the world's ultimate collection of AfDs instead of an encyclopedia? Finally, if you really do not see the significance of this event as milestone for both gay and female accomplishments in sports, that I truly feel sorry for you, because that kind of ignorance goes beyond mere trolling. --Common Sense MMA (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Indef banned sock [5][reply]

Trying to avoid the war above me, but here is what I've found from a quick Google search: [6] and http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ufc-157-official-first-bout-180047878--mma.html - press-release type things, very short and lacking in detail. [7], [8] I'm really not sure about. [9] is a good source but a bit lacking in content. [10] seems very tabloid-esque. [11] is a local-ish newspaper. [12] seems reasonable. I'm going to say there's enough here accumulatively for this to be worth keeping. I haven't seen very much on the gay-fighter angle though (having literally only searched UFC 157) - anyone who can give RS on that will make this a very clear pass for WP:GNG Lukeno94 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the article stay and just improve as more information is released, but if that is not reasonable then I support Hasteur's proposal of a redirect until such time there is enough media coverage to warrant a full article. Perhaps as the entire main card is announced.I remember halloween (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - UFC 1 through UFC 154 are substantial articles that meet WP:GNG. The fact that promotions for 157 are already in place would suggest that WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't necessarily apply such as 2014 Winter Olympics. Mkdw ^talk 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP argument. The issue at hand is UFC 157. Not any of the events in the series. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant in that this event is not gaurnteed notability, whereas the Winter olypmics has very obivous notability. Hasteur (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong use of WP:OTHERCRAP. WP:OUTCOMES. Im not entirely sure how you thought this was an accusatory action. It was simply an outcomes question. Furthermore, WP:CRYSTAL isn't superseded by "obvious notability" but other guidelines such as events that are sure to take place and that other events have already been leading up to it in a development format. In this case it has regarding its historic announcement and the publication attention in advance. Mkdw ^talk 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the wrestling UFC article should be merged into a single page. –BuickCentury Driver 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First-ever women's fight in MMA history, major PPV event. Does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, as the event is notable and almost certain to take place (my bold). --LlamaAl (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't agree with the two keepers that this isn't CRYSTAL. In fact LlamaA even says this is "almost certain to take place", meaning it mightn't. Won't hurt to not have the article and wait until after the scheduled date to find out. The sock has been zapped but it is interesting to note he/she somehow saw this article as a historical relevance for gay rights. Amazing.Moriori (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Moriori, "almost certain to take place" is a specific requirement directly from the first part of the WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. If it is "almost certain to take place" then it is satisfying a key element of WP:CRYSTAL and in fact the main WP:CRYSTAL requirement that everyone is arguing about here. Beansy (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sources that consider it to have historical relevance for gay rights. Whether you agree or not, it's the sources' opinions that matter. Silver seren^C 23:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal --No unique names 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read #1 on WP:CRYSTAL and get back to me. Because, otherwise, it seems like you don't even know the policy you're using as an argument, which is rather sad. Silver seren^C 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is zero indication at this time that this event will pass the WP:NOT policy, WP is not a reposatory for sports gossip or results. Mt king^(edits) 02:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First women's championship fight in UFC history, huge event so its very notable. Entity of the Void (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the issue, failing WP:NOT is, so can you demonstrate that it has or will recive coverage in diverse sources afer the inital pre-event anouncments and results. Mt king^(edits) 06:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the specific wording from WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that you linked in WP:NOT is "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." The event itself is getting coverage several months in advance already. If we take other UFC events as a "case study," (per WP:CONTINUED COVERAGE) for coverage to die down before the event actually happens several months from now, and not immediately die down instead, is pretty implausible. On top of that the even has not happened yet, so we have no way of knowing whether it will receive enduring coverage. Therefore the onus would be on you at this stage to prove why it is unlikely to receive continuing coverage if it already has coverage this far out in advance. On top of that there are dual milestones here that make enduring coverage almost a certainty, but that's actually beside the point. Beansy (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First female fight in the UFC, which is the headlining event and for the first womens UFC Championship. There is also the first openly gay fighter in the UFC Liz Carmouche, who is also headlining this event. This also makes it the first combat sports PPV (boxing or MMA or whatever) headlined by an openly gay fighter. This one title fight alone is creating a tsunami of interest. Beansy (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, first of all, the card hasn't been announced yet so for all intents and purposes the fact that there might be a UFC women's championship is hearsay at this point. Secondly, it's possible that the individual fighter could have to withdraw in the week before the event, therefore loosing the event it's "First Openly Gay Fighter" designation. Your and Entity of the Void both depend on the "There might be a fight of XYZZY type" peg for notability. This is speculation and WP:CRYSTAL at it's finest. Hasteur (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, the promoter and part-owner Dana White announced the fight at a press conference, specified that it would be the main-event (ahead of a very big fight between two former Light Heavyweight World Champions no less), presented Ronda Rousey in person with the first UFC women's championship belt (in continuity from her Strikeforce belt), and then both he and Rousey answered questions about it. This is a primary source announcement at an event specifically to make announcements to the media. That most of the card has not been announced yet and tickets have not gone on sale yet is pretty immaterial at this point, this fight has been as announced as announced can be thank you. It has absolutely been announced, and is not hearsay or WP:CRYSTAL. Obama "might" serve as President for the next four years or he "might" be assassinated, but assuming the former is not "hearsay" or WP:CRYSTAL. Beansy (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again can you show that this event will recive continued coverage after the inital pre-event anouncments and results becouse if not then it fails the WP:NOT policy and should be deleted. Mt king^(edits) 06:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USA Today appears to think this event is notable, so I believe we should have an article for it. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because it is intended to discourage editor speculation. It even states, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I am not buying the WP:NOT argument here either. The relevant policy is WP:EVENT. Much of the policy is meant to discourage people from opening up their newspaper and copying everything into articles. The policy states, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." This event has been widely covered in diverse sources. The next criteria down on the policy says, "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." But this event doesn't even need to jump to the may or may not be notable because it has received coverage and the scope is national demonstrated by the article in USA Today. Further, the nominator claims that this part applies: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." But it does not apply: UFC 157 is not a crime, not an accident, a death, celebrity or political news, shock news, a water cooler story, or a viral phenomena. It simply does not apply to this case. I believe I present a strong refutation of the nominator's arguments, and I believe the article should be kept as it does not violate any policy and it is notable per WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic every game that Boston Red Sox, Boston Bruins, New York Giants, FC Barcelona, Manchester United F.C. and Sydney Swans play would also quilify for an article, each of there games will clearly pass the WP:GNG, USA Today will cover everyone of them (may be not the Sydney Swans), some of the games will be the first game for a given person, or the last game, however none of thoes games will have any Encyclopedic note and would fail WP:NOT the same is true of this event, the article or ref's to date fail to demonstrate why it is Encyclopedic and not news. Mt king^(edits) 09:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I'm pretty sure every game the New York Giants have ever been in are in articles, that is very insightful of you. Not in separate articles, but they are in seasonal articles, just as there are not articles for different UFC fights, but articles for each UFC event (which averages ~11 fights per event with different competitors and with ramifications in different divisions). Finally, considering the dual milestones reached at this event, it is just short of impossible that it would not be referenced indefinitely in periodicals for years to come, something ~99% of Wikipedia sports articles cannot claim by the way. EDIT: also, news articles about individual games pretty much never come several months in advance unless it's something like the Superbowl, which does have individual articles I'm rather sure. Beansy (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never argued for such an absurd application of policy. Policy must be applied on a case by case basis as consensus can change; if you know of a game that is particularly noteworthy then create an article for it. As I have argued, it is encyclopedic because it meets the WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and it does not meet WP:NOT. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect into List_of_UFC_events. And redirect also all the other ~200 mini-articles in List_of_UFC_events. The only relevant datum are the date, the place, the participants and the winners. Merge the notable information if there is any. But wikipedia is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it doesn't have to include every event that was ever reported in a newspaper. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there is no difference between all those articles, they only change the image, date, place and lists of participants and winners. If one of them is marginally more notable due to something specific, then mention it at the list article. I mean, "the first-ever women's fight in UFC history" is not a world-shattering information, and with this meager coverage it doesn't deserve much more than a paragraph in UFC's articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep! - enric you may not see the notability as perhaps you have no interest in, and dont completely understand the sport? the preparation behind each card is huge and immense. its not just like two teams going at it, if there is 11 fights there is 22 "teams" that have been preparing for months for each event or card to get the fighters ready to compete. If enduring significance is in question, can the visits each of the older ufc event pages be seen somewhere? I would be interested in the amount of visits the pages get. I also feel that Mtkings comments should not be taken into consideration, i have made comments in these debates in the past and they were edited out of the AFD by him and there is other reports of the same thing happening. that is not a very productive and honest way of making a debate and to me shows that he perhaps is emotionally attached to deletion of ufc articles rather than the wp guidelines & actually making wiki a better place. 182.239.235.186 (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) regards josh[reply]

— 182.239.235.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. It doesn't need to keep extensive records of every participant in every sportive competition ever held. Indiscriminate listings of all participants and winners are not helpful. For example, Time 100 doesn't list every entry from every year, it those entries that are notable for specific reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event is still a couple/few months away and the exact card could change significantly between now and then. Fights get cancelled all the time due to injuries and one UFC card has been scrubbed entirely in the past. There is no way to know for certain whether there will be a woman's fight, an openly gay fighter (which as a gay man, I'm not sure is really all that notable), or any other fight. My attitude has always been fights and fight cards should not be placed into articles until they actually happen because of these issues. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First EVER Woman's fight in the history of the company, along with a major LHW Championship contender fight. Seems this AFD is being run by someone with no understanding of the sport, its history or the significance of this card. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mma/2012/12/06/ronda-rousey-meets-liz-carmouche-in-first-ufc-womens-title-fight/1752021/ <----- USA Today article about the milestone main event, http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ronda-rousey-vs-liz-carmouche-160353054--mma.html <---- Yahoo sports (an entity not exactly friendly to the UFC) giving coverage to this fight. Quick google search found me those articles. This event is already receiving coverage for it's main event feature of both the first UFC woman's bout and the first openly gay UFC fighter. Also, cute to see you guys blocked certain sites to stop supporters from posting sources. Examiner also posted an articled referring to Carmouche being openly gay. Guess we know who won when you pull crap like that. 174.3.198.16 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.3.198.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the arguments above that present that exact same logic and the refutations above? I guess not. Until the fight happens we can't be sure that the fight will occur. If the fight doesn't happen it reduces the potential notability of this event. Both of your claimed references are nothing more than thinly dressed up Press Releases and therefore don't demonstrate the enduring notability of the event. Finally, do not attack the motives of other editors. It's rude, a poor argument for your position, and against wikipedia policy. Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklisted sites were likely blacklisted for a reason. The Examiner is a glorified blog site with no editorial oversight that invites anyone to submit articles. Good find on the other USA Today article; the one you found is different than the one from the print edition that I used in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most individual sporting events are not notable; we know from past experience that certain events (e.g. individual Super Bowls) always get substantial coverage beyond contemporary news sources, but are individual mixed-martial-arts events so known? In order to fulfill our not-a-newspaper standards, we need to have more than just current news stories: books or academic journal articles, or news stories that look at this event as a past event instead of covering it simply because it's news. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i'll address each sighted guideline and sign below. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG - This event has already recieved coverage from: CNN/Sports Illustrated, The Houston Chronicle, The Huffington Post, The India Times, MSNBC/NBC Sports, The New York Post, USA Today, news.yahoo.com, also The AP, has an article that was picked up by a number of sources including The Washington Post, and The San Francisco Chronicle Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With numerous articles months ahead of time from over a dozen of the top newspapers in United States in addition to significant international coverage, I'm pretty sure that the four WP:GNG guidelines: "a topic has received (1)significant coverage in (2)reliable (3)(secondary) (4)sources that are independent of the subject" have been passed by miles at this point. There is literally no way that GNG can be a question here. Beansy (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL - "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP - I'm not sure this is relivant. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NEVENT - The Inclusion criteria point to WP:GNG, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. " Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you need to demonstrate that they have either "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect as nothing provided to date does. Mt king^(edits) 04:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP - WP:CRYSTAL specificly asks is the subject matter would merrit an article if it had already happened. Compairing UFC 157 to any other UFC event is a direct comparison, to answer the question asked by WP:CRYSTAL. Kevlar (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the curial one, the Policy WP:NOT, there is no attempt here or at the article to demonstrate the enduring notability of the event, you can assert all you like but you need to show with sources that is is going to have enduring notability. News reports don't demonstrate that. Mt king^(edits) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are again misstating the words of WP:NOT regarding WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Again: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." As this is an event this far out already receiving a fair amount of mainstream coverage, and with the dual milestones set to happen, it is reasonable to assume that coverage will endure beyond the event itself. However, that is very much a moot point as it is the onus of those calling for deletion to make a compelling argument that there will be not likely be enduring coverage in the future, otherwise your argument could be made for anything that is not a past event, in any subject. Beansy (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misstating anything, WP:NOT is clear when it says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." the coverage so far for this event is just such routine reporting of the announcement and reporting of event speculation, as such the coverage is not sufficient for the event to be included in the encyclopedia, in actual fact the burden is on those claiming it meets the inclusion policy to demonstrate it does so you need to demonstrate with the use of sourcing that it has or will receive the appropriate non-news coverage. Mt king^(edits) 05:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been a number of articles about the event that are specifically about the significance of the event and not routine reporting. That transcends even the harshest possible interpretation of WP:NOT. Beansy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned the links provided above (before you edited your post) so lets look at them :

CNN/Sports Illustrated a three sentence article about Ronda Rousey mentioning her appearance at this event. It is a AP wire report, and does not cover the event in any detail, nothing on how the the will be significant.
The Houston Chronicle One small mention about Alexander Gustafsson fighting Lyoto Machida at the event taken from a blog which "is not edited by the Chronicle".
The Huffington Post Article about Liz Carmouche no mention of this event.
The India Times is a link to a bloodyelbow.com page.
MSNBC/NBC Sports copy of same AP wire report posted by CNN above, a three sentence article with nothing on how the event will be significant.
The New York Post Also a blog post reporting on the announcement of the event.
USA Today Two mentions of the event, nothing on how the event will be significant.
news.yahoo.com Same AP wire report that NBC and CNN published.
The AP is the AP report covering the news conference, just routine WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage.

so lets not kid ourselves into thinking there is anything other than routine news reports on this event. Mt king^(edits) 07:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the Huffington Post article Mtking, i should not have linked to that article. As for the rest, my point was only that nonWP:WG news sources are covering the event. Sorry for the bad link. Kevlar (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a lot of Kevlar's citations left something to be desired after taking a closer look, I'll give you that. It's okay though, I found some better ones. It's not like there's a lack of them.

Orange County Register: Rousey to make history in MMA (full article, non-routine coverage, and over two months out at that)
USA Today: UFC unsure of Ronda Rousey's PPV draw, banking it's big (ditto, and different from the article you linked above and a rather long article)
The Atlantic: This Girl Is Not Afraid of You and Will Beat You Up (fairly short article but much more than a blurb and from a high-brow magazine that does not do routine sports coverage at all)
Queerty.com: UFC Signs First Openly Lesbian Fighter, Liz Carmouche (short article but from a high-profile gay & lesbian-issues news site that has no routine sports coverage)
International Business Tribune: Ronda Rousey: Women's MMA Star Set To Make Her Debut At UFC 157 (non-routine article about the debut of the UFC's women's division, specifically mentioning Rousey's mainstream media attention as a catalyst)
Daily News (Los Angeles) (longish, non-routine article on challenger Liz Carmouche and her social media tactics to land her the title match)

This is all from about 2.5 months away from the fight, and shortly after it was announced. These are non-routine, significant news sources. Also, the the Huffington Post article you mentioned above does indeed mention the event, you may want to read that one again. There's also that AP article which is quite in-depth and hardly "routine" coverage. Let's not kid ourselves, there is plenty of non-routine coverage by any stretch of the imagination, and more of it every day. Beansy (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All sports events get this kind of routine coverage, go have a look, all those sources are primary news coverage, with no analysis of why the event will be encyclopedic. News coverage is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Mt king^(edits) 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are not required at this point, per WP:USINGPRIMARY#Secondary_sources_for_notability: "It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events and breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." There is no requirement for true secondary sources at this time per the WP:PRIMARYNEWS requirements. EDIT: And no, very few sports events get this sort of coverage and you saying that it is "routine" doesn't make it so. Beansy (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with you when you say it is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for run-of-the-mill events, it is exactly why this run-of-the-mill event has no place in an encyclopedia. Mt king^(edits) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been beyond established that this is not a "run-of-the-mill" event. That there is a general dearth of secondary sources for events that just happened, let alone an event that hasn't happened yet (sadly there are usually no book references to news stories less than two weeks old). However the AP article certainly qualifies as a "secondary source" as does the International Tribune article, among others. I do think you need to let it go at this point and remember that Wikipedia is not about winning. Nothing personal but this is getting rather absurd. Beansy (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NOT - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The notability of this event is not in question; WP:OUTCOMES of UFC 1 through UFC 154. UFC 157 is likely as sure to happen as 2020 Summer Olympics. I would say they share the same amount of uncertainty about whether they would go forward, and thus be within the policy. Mkdw ^talk 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons given above. Evenfiel (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalidated per WP:PERNOM (and the collary regarding other reasons) Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Hasteur, but WP:PERNOM is only an essay and not policy. Furthermore, if you read PERNOM, it directly says, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". In a way, PERNOM also endorses this as a "sufficient", albeit minimum endorsement. Mkdw ^talk 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - The debate over WP:CRYSTAL is completely overblown. In 221 UFC events, only one was cancelled. So far, more than 99.5% of the UFC events went ahead. The Olympic Games have a far worse record of cancelling events. We are so sure that an UFC event will happen, that when it doesn't, that's still a notable event. Besides, this is the first UFC event with women's fight. Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there are a small number of upcoming UFC events at any given time (9 at the moment), would an omnibus article be appropriate for these articles? My understanding of the '2012 in UFC' omnibus was that it quickly became too large and began to appear cluttered and unmanageable. 'Upcoming UFC Events' could also include the currently deleted articles for UFC 155 and UFC 156. This could all but remove the debate over WP:CRYSTAL. If this is acceptable to those who are currently voting Delete i don't see any reason i wouldn't change my vote from keep to merge.

If there were clear criteria established that would prevent this war from continuing as an ongoing and utterly absurd cycle, I wouldn't object to upcoming UFC events having their own article and being allowed to split off into their own articles around, oh, 2 weeks ahead of the event. Heck, I'd be fine making a compromise to omnibus Fuel TV and UFC on Versus events by year as well or whatever, maybe Ultimate Fight Nights too (Strikeforce Challengers shows as well, some of which have been deleted outright including the one that was headlined by the inaugural women's Bantamweight title fight to which Rousey's title can trace its lineage, if I'm not mistaken). Considering the only offer of compromise from a heavily active editor from the other side I've seen is to omnibus all UFC articles by year, I think the two sides are still very far apart on anything like that. Beansy (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; first ever women's fight seems to rise to the level of "notable enough to cover". WP:CRYSTAL arguments are "meh"; the fight seems likely to occur, and if it doesn't then there may still be coverage as to why. If it doesn't then is the appropriate time to reassess notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point, i'm fed up with both sides here, both of which are attempting to game the rules, with one using canvassing and the other trying to use inappropriate bureaucracy. I'm of the opinion that both sides should be banned, Agent00f, Hasteur, Mtking, all of them. MMA seems to be its own little I/P topic area where everyone just needs to be blocked.

But, as for this AfD, it is rather inappropriate, showing that Hasteur didn't bother to look for sources at all. That or he has an extremely incorrect opinion on our policies and guidelines. As for the coverage:

UFC unsure of Ronda Rousey's PPV draw, banking it's big - USA Today - Full article with an extreme amount of depth on the fight

First UFC women’s main event to feature openly gay fighter - NBC

Ronda Rousey UFC: Women's MMA Star Set To Make Her Debut At UFC 157 - International Business Times

MMA: Rousey ready to make history in MMA - The Orange County Register

Ronda Rousey to debut at UFC 157 against Liz Carmouche - Digital Journal

The notability for this event is evident. It's the reason for all the headlines in the first place. This is not only the first women's event in the UFC, but it is also including the first openly gay fighter to fight in the UFC (and thus the first to fight in the first women's event). Silver seren^C 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN, WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE (which is still only a suggestion). Now please rescind your call for myself and Mtking to be banned as it's inappropriate and not relevant to the discussion here. On the one side you have reasoned nominations based in policy that have been debated, consensus judged, and upheld on appeal (DRV). On the other you have editor misbehavior, canvasing, socking, deliberate disruption of attempts to broker a compromise, and gross violations of the 5 pilars. Having myself and Mtking banned from the topic area will simply give the disruptive elements what they want, the ability to POV push and game the rules of what an article can be.

Have you even considered the 9 month slog that editors in good standing have had to deal with to get even this level of reasoned debate. This even is 2 months out. UFC fights have been scrubbed a week before the event which means that all your claimed coverage could fly out the window if one or more of the fighters has to withdraw. Ergo there is an element of speculation as to if this event is going to have enough notability to stand on it's own. Hasteur (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, pertaining to WP:BEFORE: Section D.3: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Adequate sources have been proven to exist, most of which predate your nomination. You cited General Notability Guidelines as your primary concern in your AfD nomination. The article may not have undergone drastic changes like the Heyman standard (although I've added some better references), but I think it's become evident that WP:GNG does not apply.

Right now, this really doesn't feel like truly reasoned debate yet, and putting all the blame on the MMA side when for most of the duration of this this has felt like a witchhunt isn't the most diplomatic approach in my opinion, regardless of Agent00f's canvassing actions. Please, I'd love to hash something out here (beyond just this article I mean), and I think WP:MMA would be more than willing to engage in constructive discourse if you are. I'm hardly the best person to approach on that (Kevlar seems like a far better proponent for WP:MMA than myself, and I'd like to extract myself from anymore drama at the next good opportunity), but I'm just saying. Beansy (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do we have to go through this for every single UFC article? Agent00f, Hasteur, and Mtking's actions clearly fall within WP:WITCHHUNT. They automatically AFD every single UFC article and receive several clear, intelligent, and compelling reasons as to why the article should not be deleted. Every single discussion like this one is overwhelmingly in favor of Keep. These three users are abusing their powers and will not rest until every UFC article is removed from Wikipedia. As I have suggested before, if the goal of these people is truly to keep Wikipedia full of relevant, important information, then I strongly recommend that they remove themselves from this discussion entirely and ask another admin, one who is neutral and not on a WP:WITCHHUNT, to look at the reasons presented from both sides and make a decision that is in the best interests of both parties. Until that happens, Agent00f, Hasteur, Mtking, and others will continue to try and delete every UFC article, abuse their administrative powers, and silence the overwhelming majority that is in agreement that these articles should remain on Wikipedia. Courier00 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note about ANI - I'm fairly disgusted to learn this is the surface of a long ongoing dispute over the UFC and MMA articles. See ANI Canvassing, and 3RR Noticeboard between Mtking and Agent, and RFC dispute. There was also a bad faith declined SPI involved with Mtking. Furthermore, several edit wars across various articles such as List of current UFC fighters&action=history and more. I think it might be in the interests of the general community that further AfD's be left to the editors outside of these disputes. Mkdw ^talk 08:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Silver seren^C 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those SPI filings are a bit marginal, but I do agree that there is far too much in the way of anti-MMA crap being spouted by these editors. Not 100% sure I support a general block, but a topic block is definitely in order. Nominating an article that CLEARLY passes WP:GNG and yet citing that as a reason... very bad faith. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with most of that. I'd suggest not mentioning the Mtking SPI though, that was one of the most ridiculous things ever - I thought it was April 1st when I read that, and I think everyone else did too. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the SPI to illustrate that the other side has also undergone severe bad faith steps and not just one side. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That SPI is straight-up embarrassing, dear god. I think it's been established that all WP:MMA proponents have not engaged in perfect conduct themselves. Nevertheless the current situation is still just completely crazy right now and this ~18-month war against MMA seems pretty unique among sports on Wikipedia, with no clear motivation. The Portuguese-language Wikipedia actually is a better resource for keeping track of card formations on upcoming UFC events now. I don't really have time for much more of this, but I think the best answer is hammering out clear guidelines for MMA events at WP:SPORTS or a subpage of that, with WP:MMA's involvement and input. Beansy (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We essentially need to force Wikiproject MMA to create a set of notability guidelines for this subject and an example of the accepted kind of UFC Fight article. Silver seren^C 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not voting here: what you need a community wide RfC as to the interpretation of WP:GNG as it applies to MMA articles. That is the ONLY way you can create a guideline that will stick and be universally accepted. I've thought of starting one myself, and I really don't care what the outcome is (never have, really), I just want to see a result that will shed light on the subject and make the drama go away. Crafting a successful RfC, however, is no small or simple thing, as this is not a simple problem. Without a full community RfC, the community is free to ignore the consensus on some talk page, and they will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I absolutely respect your neutrality here and your attempt to broker peace, but I have to ask: which community? Wikipedia as a whole, WP:SPORTS, or WP:MMA? Would functionality, page hits, user-friendliness, and organization be considered? Is it wrong that I get the feeling that most (not all but most) of the people opposing the type of articles produced by WP:MMA up until mid-2011 are not people who actually have an interest in MMA and would not be qualified to understand the differences in significance between a UFC show and a Super Fight League show, let alone what's notable about the canceled show Affliction: Trilogy (casualty of this war)? Right now you have one side that wants to roll things back (I wouldn't welcome every C or D-League article but there has been good content lost so I'm closest to this position), and on the other hand you have a group spearheading the opposition that has opinions that seem to range from omnibussing UFC events by year and doing god knows what to second-tier league events (I don't think any serious MMA editor would consider that position remotely acceptable), up to deleting every MMA article on Wikipedia. Right now, I'd be perfectly happy to draft a list of proposed omnibus compromises on second-tier league events (most of which are defunct) and even lowest-tier UFC events, and I'd be perfectly eager to hammer that out within WP:MMA, but I haven't gotten any indication that the other side is willing to negotiate. If the folks who have nominated UFC event articles for deletion left and right want to actually extend an olive branch of some kind I'd certainly welcome it but I haven't seen any real indication of that. I think that needs to happen before an attempted RfC to broker peace occurs. I don't think an RfC has a chance of success without that. Beansy (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know nothing about MMA, but I'm fed up, as a neutral, of the AfD wars going on - especially when things like this, which blatantly pass at least one of the nomination grounds, get nominated.Lukeno94 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I speak of "the community", I always mean en.wikipedia.org as a whole. In order for a decision to have a strong enough effect to be essentially a guideline or policy, it must have a consensus of everyone at Wikipedia, not just those that are interested in the subject matter. Very often, people that are interested in a subject matter are able to create a guideline that the entire community does agree with, but those participating in the MMA area have not been able to do so. This is why I think there needs to be a list of choices presented in an RfC, and 30 days of !voting and discussion to follow, and closed by an experienced person who understands the complexity of the situation and can properly gauge consensus. We can't reinvent the guidelines, we can only interpret the existing policies as they would apply to MMA events. The hard part is boiling the possible options down to no more than 3 or 4 clear options, which is a very difficult thing to do. Eventually, this will need to be done if we want to end the debates on what is and isn't AFD-worthy. This means a discussion to decide the possible options, and a neutral party to present the RfC for consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first ever women's bantamweight title fight, and the 1st time an openly gay fighter fights in the UFC happens at this event. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every UFC event isn't inherently notable, but the sources Silverseren provided certainly show that this one is, with advance coverage from multiple reliable sources. The WP:CRYSTAL argument has been pretty thoroughly debunked, and it seems clear that this easily passes WP:GNG.CaSJer (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources and facts demonstrate notability and consistency with what Wikipedia is. Calling UFC events unencyclopedia is absurd given that printed Encyclopedias cover this exact kind of information: [13], [14], etc. Per WP:FIVE, Wikipedia is not just a generalized encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia. If multiple printed encyclopedias cover UFC events, then there is no rationale reason why a paperless one shouldn't, especially not when it is an event with historic milestones: first woman's championship fight in the world's largest MMA promotion; first openly gay fight in the world's largest MMA promotion; covered in non-MMA specific newspapers, etc. --Live Network Jack (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Live Network Jack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It meets both of those, as I showed above, so your vote doesn't make any sense. Silver seren^C 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's be realistic. There's a 99% chance that this event will have notability after it has occurred, having the first UFC women's title fight and all that. What's the point in deleting it now? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that WP:ATA#CRYSTAL specifically covers this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply per many references above, which also establish notability.Hooskerdo (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's a sporting event. Of course reliable sources are going to cover it to provide enough content to meet WP:GNG. The topic still needs to meet WP:NOT#NEWS, which reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Just about all the keep positions argue that that this event will be covered in depth in the future. How would they know that if they did not believe that coverage of UFC 157 is routine news reporting? While that in depth coverage assures passage of WP:GNG, it at the same time causes the topic to fail WP:NOT#NEWS and the closer can derive a routine sports news reporting conclusion directly from the strength of the keep arguments predicting that this UFC 157 topic will receive news reporting coverage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the keep arguments are based on the prediction that it will be notable: mine are based on the merits of the article as it stands. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the merits of the article as it stands." That's not what is judge at AfD. As for your arguments, you wrote, "USA Today appears to think this event is notable" - That goes to WP:GNG, not WP:NOT. You wrote, "The relevant policy is WP:EVENT". No, WP:EVENT is a guideline, not policy, and WP:EVENT is a notability guideline, not WP:NOT. You wrote, "The relevant policy is WP:EVENT. Much of the policy is meant to discourage people from opening up their newspaper and copying everything into articles." No, that would be the Copyright violation policy, not WP:EVENT. You wrote, "This event has been widely covered in diverse sources." Yes, that goes to WP:GNG, not WP:NOT. For the keep positions to succeed in this AfD, they need to identify, per WP:NOT#NEWS, the news coverage of UFC 157 that is other than routine sports news reporting. The same is true for the other UFC articles -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 37.5, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 -- but that is for another AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually picked this from a HUffingtonPost article about Liz. I vote *Keep because the event is notable and will have lasting impact for the LBGTQ community. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww[reply]

That wouldn't exactly be an appropriate action and I sincerely doubt that it would have any effect. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get itself involved in editing disputes. No, the best method to oppose MtKing and Hasteur is to voice an opposing "Keep" opinion here, with a properly articulated reason why the article should be kept that takes into account Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Silver seren^C 05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Break[edit]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Oskar said, what's the point? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Ignore all rules fans want it and need it. UFCFan92 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Quack Quack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1st ever women's title fight has lasting significance. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stop deleting UFC Events. Tickets for this event are already on sale [[15]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.139.1 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tickets being on sale is not a valid reason for notability or keeping. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this will pass notability, likely that it is just a routine event like all the other UFC matches and therefore should be deleted. Claritas § 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant evidence that this will pass notability, because it is the first women's event in the UFC and it is the first event ever to include an openly gay fighter. The notability because of this is evident from the large amount of sources that already exist and are intensely and deeply discussing the upcoming event. Thus, this event and article meet both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL because of these sources. Silver seren^C 04:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it is completely incorrect to state that all other UFC matches are routine, as the articles themselves refute this. Such as UFC 94, which is notable for both the fact that it is the first event to have current titleholders compete against each other and because of the greasing controversy that erupted because of the event. The non-routine nature of this UFC event is also represented by the fact that it has reached Good Article status and has extensive source coverage. Silver seren^C 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has received absolutely zero coverage by academic publications, which suggests non-notability. None of the sources qualify as reliable sources. Claritas § 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are...are you seriously saying that all non-academically published sources aren't reliable sources? I don't even know how to begin to respond to that. Silver seren^C 10:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just fell out of my chair laughing. I'd suggest Claritas reads WP:NEWSORG Luchuslu (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would you delete an article for an event that is coming up, just to have to start it all over again. How about we work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's really a shame that folks continue to hurt the spirit of WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Stop interfering with fans updating the UFC event page. People rely on the UFC event page for reliable information regarding the sport of MMA. What is the point of destroying this? Otherwise, just delete the whole thing, if you're going to continue applying rules to justifying the deletion of new UFC events, why not just delete all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmy08210 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. Rest is just a comment on the contributor and not on the merits of the article. Hasteur (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first women UFC event ever. There is significant notability about this event. Also, how ignorant to say this is just another "routine" event. This event and article meet both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.214.85 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL is not something to be met... Hasteur (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are incorrect. WP:CRYSTAL specifically discusses what is and is not appropriate to have an article on. This article meets what is appropriate because the event is already clearly defined and verifiable via high quality sources that discuss it in significant depth. Silver seren^C 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons listed above, expect those left by angry sockpuppets Luchuslu (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM Invalid. Hasteur (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this rate, let's just delete everything that is on Wikipedia because pretty much all of it could be lawyered to the point of making some kind of case that it shouldn't be here. I don't understand the witch hunt.I remember halloween (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you asserting an WP:OTHERSTUFF response? If you're saying that we're conducting a WP:WITCHHUNT here, I ask that you retract your comment as it is in the "comments about contributors and not the content" of which WP prohibits. Specifcally, saying that an attack has occured without diffs to back it up is an attack. If you look at the very begining I expressed doubt that the article passed the criteria. Nowhere did I invoke the pitchforks. Those were supplied by the townsfolk themselves. Hasteur (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seriously, Hasteur, stop it. The wikilawyering is getting annoying. Silver seren^C 22:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Seriously, Silver seren, strike your comment on the editor and not the discussion at hand (See I can do satire). The rules are why we're at this discussion, because random drive by editors think they can load Wikipedia up with great speculation because it's their interest. I've been working on a article in my sandbox on and off for nearly a year to get it up to bullet proof article status. Not just throwing the contents of press releases in a page and slapping it up on the main space. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about hunting witches

Comment I believe WP:WITCHHUNT applies here as stated by a prior author. I already voted as an IP while I got my account info back, so I'll refrain from voting, but IMO, MTKing, Hasteur and anyone else involved in this blatant witch hunt should be removed from the discussion while an impartial mod/admin is brought in to deal with this situation. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this has all the hallmarks of a WP:WITCHHUNT by people have that no real interest in making things better regarding the UFC pages. These constant deletions have just made a mess of the UFC pages/sections.:Shponglefan (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi (Joseph) Goldstein[edit]

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

Added {{find sources}} for Hebrew: most results are bound to be in Hebrew. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bio with a distinct shortage of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent sources were added. This is a well known historian, especially well known for his widely cited and reviewed biographies of prominent Israelis. Meets notability criteria #1 of Wikipedia:Academic and criteria #1, #3, and #4c of WP:AUTHOR. Marokwitz (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Goldstein is Notable and well known historian in Israel. He wrote many articles and many important books about important figures in the Jewish history and the history of the State of Israel. He wrote biographies of Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin all three of them were prime ministers in state of Israel and Eli Horovitz who was many years the CEO of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. In my opinion there are enough sources in the article. Hanay (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough linked reviews of his books in the article to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article now indicates meeting WP:AUTHOR and possibly WP:NPROF. (Thanks to Marokwitz, is seems.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Life Equation[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional "equation", plot-only description of a fictional element. Claritas § 18:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Non-notable? It's the running theme throughout most of Kirby's New Gods-related works, and was the central theme in Cosmic Odyssey, among other things. This isn't merely the choice of sandwich some character ate for lunch one day. - jc37 08:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And references? Do a google search. I got tired of sifting through the TONS of results. People are obviously aware of the concept, and note it in all sorts of sites related to comics, television, CCGs, video games, films, etc. In addition, here's a satirical one: [16]. And here are two non-comics-related ones: [17] and [18]. And of course comics-related ones like: [19], and the kirby museum: [20]. And for those of you capitalistically minded, a few people apparently decided to try to publish the Wikipedia article: [21] and [22]. - jc37 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are reliable. Can you offer something published by an academic journal or a mainstream publisher ? The fact that it's all over the internet says nothing about notability. Claritas § 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion... (you may want to re-read WP:UNRELIABLE, among other things.) But your opinion aside, before I go check out some of the sources listed here and elsewhere, can you offer such? You might want to check out WP:BEFORE. Afd is not cleaup, after all.- jc37 10:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. What would be the point of nominating an article for AFD if there were reliable sources lying all over the place ? --Claritas § 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time Magazine had coverage which Google shows, but its a dead link now. Oolong Island Match #1: Galactus vs. Darkseid - Techland, TIME - Mar 18, 2010 Why He's So Bad: The ruler of Apokolips, Darkseid seeks the Anti-Life Equation to destroy free will and transform the universe into nothing but suffering and war. Various reliable sources cover comic books, and this reoccurring theme gets mentioned a lot. Its the main driving force for a major character in the DC comic universe, and the center to various crossover events between comic book series. Dream Focus 13:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as withdrawn by nominator per WP:SK case 1. Warden (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Block (Judge Dredd)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, plot-only fancruft. Claritas § 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 18 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional half-demons[edit]

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

Fails notability - the concept of a demon-human hybrid is not notable, and we have no corresponding article. Claritas § 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can see both sides, but it's not uncommon to have lists for certain supernatural types of creatures in fiction. We have lists such as List of fictional demons and the general consensus is that such lists do pass WP:NLIST as long as the characters or the series pass notability guidelines, if I'm understanding this correctly. I know there's more to it than this, but there is that. I will say that the list as it is now does need some work and the definition of what makes up a half or demi demon would have to be slightly elaborated. As far as whether or not the concept of a demon/human hybrid is notable or not, it is. It's just that most of what I've seen tends to lean more towards talking about demonology as a whole rather than specifically mentioning half demons. I know that the term "nephilim" can be used to describe human/demon halflings, although it's commonly associated with human/angel halflings when it comes to religion. The angels are usually referred to as fallen, which is how some demons got their start, but I know that some still refer to them as angels.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a list of like items, most of which have their own Wikipedia articles, is something useful. Dream Focus 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great argument. Claritas § 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also mentioned it has a list of like items, most of which have their own Wikipedia articles, which obviously is what list articles are suppose to be. These characters get coverage for being half-demons. Inuyasha's title character is half demon, and they do a lot of coverage about the problems being half does for both sides, and how he is originally obsessed with becoming a full demon by getting the shikon jewel. Dream Focus 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For starters, "Half-demons" and "demon hybrids" aren't notable, academic terms; therefore this isn't a notable list. Furthermore, this is a list put together arbitrarily with original research (an editor making a judgement from his personal observations) without using any sources to label these as "Half-demons". Searches for "Half demons" on google books and google yield no applicable reliable sources. Them From Space 05:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "cambion" instead - that's probably the term used for a half-demon in academia. Certainly it applies to both Merlin and Caliban, both famous fictional half-demons. I would be surprised if there weren't at least a couple of academic papers on those characters. The Steve 05:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Them. You know a page is in serious trouble when there's one reference and it's to an issue of Action Comics (!!!) (no seriously, for real, I'm not making this up!) This also appears to be an unpopulatable list, with several of the characters being debatable or even downright nonsensical (Heat Miser?! What the hell?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to List of fictional demons as useful information, but not as an individually notable concept. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Right now the list concentrates on recent and pop-culture half-demons, but there are lots from traditional folklore, from European to Indian to Japanese. For instance, I added Merlin, one of the more famous half-demons, to the list. Needs improvement, but should be kept separate from demons. The Steve 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources too establish notability of this concept as per WP:LISTN. Would support a merge to List of fictional demons if it would reach a compromise, and if the entries could truly be verified by multiple sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Should not exist as an article itself, If anything should be merged with List of fictional demons as Gaijin42 said above. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:08, 26 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 National Pigeon Service. MBisanz ^talk 06:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day carrier pigeon cipher[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTNEWS - This note is one of hundreds of thousands of messages sent during the war. It is unlikely to yield historically relevant information if ever decrypted, and its contents are highly unlikely to be notable once current media interest subsides. No references outside of news outlets and blogs.

Unencyclopedic content - verbatim contents of the message in question, primary sources do not belong in an encyclopedia. Technically this is a copyvio since the message is still covered by crown copyright. Fireice (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. As a news story, this was fundamentally just an amusing bit of trivia. The provided decrypt relies on a code that belongs in a Famous Five story, and since the probable cipher (as stated by GCHQ) used a one-time pad a decrypt is vanishingly unlikely, so any possible historical relevance is unlikely.TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changed my mind, Merge useful content to National Pigeon Service.21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It's just a transient news item. Apart from the problem of presenting fantasy as potential fact, I think it would be kinder on Gord Young if his absurd "decrypt" - not a decrypt at all, just some clumsy acronyms - were not preserved for posterity on the world's most popular reference work. bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It does stir interest in the cryptography community, mostly due to curiosity of how things worked back in the day. Analogically, it does have the same value as how things where written in old languages. It is a witness of a time period just like any letters collected by museums. It's an old encryption whether the proposal was accurate is debatable without some WWII code book as reference. It certainly is too simple compared to modern field ciphers. It should be merged into the pigeon service or cryptography pages as an example. Mightyname (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a technical copyvio as Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge There may have been "hundreds of thousands of messages sent during the war" but most tactical ciphertext messages like this example were routinely destroyed during the war and many files were burnt shortly afterwards. I'm not aware of any similar message being preserved, so it has historic interest. It provides insight on the methods used, e.g. routinely sending two birds per message. And given that we do not know what encryption method was used, it is not possible to say how sophisticated it was, except that it is not easily broken. Note that the British government has asked for the public's help in providing information about the message. That said, I have no strong objection to merging with carrier pigeon, where it would provide a useful example. If there are significant cryptographic details developed later, we can always make a separate article then. --agr (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are referring to the message as a physical object, then I'm not aware of it being deemed notable enough to be preserved in any museum. The message contents are, aside from their provenance and crypto interest just a string of letters. I would like to point out that a whole project dedicated to breaking such messages (M4 Project) is not notable enough for wiki inclusion, let alone single message. Fireice (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The M4 Project dealt with 3 intercepted but unbroken German cipher texts. I am not aware of that project getting any coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject of this article has been covered by numerous sources including the New York Times, BBC news, NBC news ..., over at least six weeks so far. It is a British code and is an original manuscript, not an intercept. Maybe other examples exist of similar messages, but I am not aware of any. Bletchley Park has an exhibit on War Pigeons [23]. As far as I know they have no examples of actual messages. This message is near certain to wind up there, but if it does not there are plenty of museums that would prize it.--agr (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - They managed to break 2 messages out of 3, with significant news coverage at the time [24]. However it turned out to be short lived since they don't have wider historical significance. Fireice (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Two reasons to keep: 1. It is an interesting example of how a (dubious) minor news story gets 'picked up' by National Papers and then International. 2. The analysis by pigeon 'fanciers' (experts) on the identity of the pigeon itself is an interesting example of the meta-analysis of message transmisison information exogenous to the coded message itself.--BWernham (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page is of questionable value. The line about two birds could be merged into Carrier Pigeon.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think that it does have some value beyond the current media stir because it is likely to remain of interest while it hasn't been (by consensus) been definitively decoded, much like [Kryptos] which has its own article. Val42 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - one of hundreds of thousands of carrier pigeons, and its only claim to fame is that it turned up this year and received some lightweight media coverage. As Government Communications Headquarters has assessed that the code was encrypted using a one time pad, it's not breakable without the original (which is certain to have been destroyed in 1944 or 1945) and amateur speculation about the contents of the message is pointless. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The GCHQ has not said it was encrypted using a one time pad, just that it might have been. What the GCHQ has said is that they cannot evaluate proposed solutions without some additional documentation such as old code books which they no longer possess but might be in the hands of the public.--agr (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you're correct. They make it pretty clear in their press release that this was probably encrypted using a special one-off code and possibly a one time pad. The odds of the codebook having survived the war are essentially nil. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The odds of a pigeon's remains being discovered 58 years later with an intact message are essentially nil. Many soldiers kept war souvenirs and there are dusty archives poorly searched. GCHQ publicized the message in the hope of finding such material.--agr (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor, non-notable news "interest" item. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Pigeon Service. Much as I would like this to stand as a separate article, it isn't much more than a passing news story. It wold be a useful extension of National pigeon service (a stub) showing how pigeons were used in combat conditions and an example of how messages were written. NtheP (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The story has been the subject of massive international attention for awhile now, but I don't think it's worthy of its own article. The information about the proposed solution should also be drastically pared down, since it's almost certainly wrong. I know quite a bit about ciphers,[25] and the method that was proposed was the standard kind of "wrong" solution that folks come up with. They look at the letters, assume they're initials, and then make up any message they want based on those initials. It's not repeatable, and can lead to a wide variety of possible solutions. Which doesn't mean that we should give each one a major section, or its own article. So, merge the story, keep it short, and then just provide references which readers can follow if they want to get more info. Possible targets would be War pigeon, Carrier pigeon#Wartime use, or Homing pigeon#In war. --Elonka 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you excluding National Pigeon Service as a merge target for a reason?--agr (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was just offering possible examples. I have no objection to merging the article to National Pigeon Service. --El on ka 05:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (nominator). I think merging to National Pigeon Service is a good idea, as long as the decrypt is removed, as it is unlikely to be correct unless its author ever reveals the reference codebook. Fireice (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the decrypt itself, leaving a brief reference to it along with a quote from GCHQ saying such decrypts are unverifiable without supporting material, such as a code book. If there is no objection to merging with National Pigeon Service, I'm inclined to just do it.--agr (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ive merged material from this article to National Pigeon Service> If there is no objection, I'll redirect this article to National Pigeon Service.--agr (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger -- The subject is hardly notable in its own right, but appropriate as a footnote to a more general article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 24 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 through consensus and WP:SNOW. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Aarons[edit]

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

Though it's a well-written article, there's nothing in here that demonstrates that this criminal defense attorney meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry and a few advertising articles about non-notable companies that were speedily deleted; edit pattern suggests WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would totally disagree the attorney in question doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lets first consider: 1.) The Attorney in question Represented a number of notable clients in cases which made national/international headlines. 2.) Robert Ray Fry, who was one of his clients is one of the last 2 people on death row in New Mexico. The death Penalty has been repealed. 3.) Robert Ray Fry, assuming he is not spared, will be the last person to die via capital punishment in the state of New Mexico. 4.) From a case law standpoint this attorney is important as decisions in cases in which he has played a key role have been used as precedent in the United States Court system. 5.) The subject in question is therefore important to wiki project law. Meanie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:BIO and WP:PAID. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a public figure who represents high profile clients, in numerous cases. Per Wiki:Bio A person is presumed notable if he or she is the subject of multiple published secondary sources. - At least 100 newspaper articles, multiple TV interviews (Including the Los Alamos Case(National), Robertson High Hazing Case(Intl Attention),and Robert Ray Fry Trial (Historically significant individual in their own right - though not for good reason). Per Wiki:Bio The sources are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. - The subject clearly didn't write the media articles, the book about the case, or other media case. Per Wiki:Bio - Needs to be noted for more than one event - Subject is noted for hundreds of cases, including more than a dozen high profile cases spanning 2 decades. Meanie (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is merely mentioned in a number of sources; there is no significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual in question was mentioned 221 times in the ABQ Journal since 1995. And has had similar billing in the other 4 major papers in the state. Meanie (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will repeat one more time; "mention" != "depth of coverage." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in the process of reading through the articles. Its going to take a while as there are 221 at the one paper. Some of them are more than mentions, some are quotations. Meanie (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1. WP:NOPAY: Assuming Meanie is the author he gets a vote, but what about the Subject himself? Let me state unequivocally I have not nor will I pay Meanie as author or anyone else $1 to advocate against deletion. WP:NOPAY We can safely assume that he advocates because he believes in his articles. At the risk of having a fool for a client, I advocate for myself here.

2. WP:COI re Robert Fry. As the subject of this article I have a conflict of interest when I make changes but my intent is only to fill in details or correct errors. Jamie, the lone naysayer to date, accuses: "Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry" and, in nominating the Fry stub for deletion at the same time, "most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability." I was wholly ignorant of any risk of deletion when I suggested adding Fry, not to pull myself by the bootstraps but because Fry is the first defendant to face not two but three separate death penalty trials; he stands to be the first prisoner ever executed after his jurisdiction abolished the death penalty - if you followed the legislative history you would know that the political compromise was to abolish the death penalty for future cases only if Fry fries first. Passing and signing legislation with one serial killer in mind is fraught with constitutional ex post facto law issues. When one naysayer attacks the author personally, your guiding principles should be verifiability and neutrality of the article itself.

3. Notability. Jamie's only substantive objection, although he attacks more than one facet. Of course I am notable! Notability(people) presumes a person "to be notable if he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources." Meanie is sifting through several hundred articles quoting me during high profile cases,. Coupled with these hundreds of articles quoting me are thousands discussing my case without mentioning my name. I can't find where the Albuquerque Journal said the Torreon case was the top story of that calendar year among its readership, but the execution of Clark first nEX Mexican executed since 1961 - Fry in line to the be other one, DNA exonerating Rowley from death row, the Los Alamos case triggering a closed session of the House Subcommittee about security at the multi-billion dollar Laboratory -- each are high profile of themselves.

4. Depth of Coverage Basic coverage requires: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Jamie says, "The subject is merely mentioned in a number of sources; there is no significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. ...I will repeat one more time; "mention" != "depth of coverage." Did he bother to read those sources, or does he just assume trial lawyers only deserve mere mention? There is no need to quibble over "multiple independent sources" quoting from courtroom arguments and post-acquittal comments, let's look at a seventeen paragraph article in 1998 -- 'Hit Squad' battles for defendants, url=http://newspaperarchive.com/santa-fe-new-mexican/1988-10-23/page-11?tag=hit+squad+aarons&rtserp=tags/hit-squad-aarons?ndt=ex&pd=23&py=1988&pm=10%7Cnewspaper=Santa Fe New Mexican, date=10/23/1988 -- and another "page one" top of fold article published thirteen years later --Lawyers Feel Duty To Make System Work Outstanding criminal attorneys also enjoy challenge and rewards, Santa Fe New Mexican, 04/22/2001 -- about me and my trial team. Court TV captured my portly person for hours, CBS and last week's Dateline interviewed for minutes, and the Monster Slayer book devoted a chapter to my background and followed the trial step by step. None of these examples are mere passing references.

5. Reliability. In attacking the Fry stub, Jamie complains, "Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author." The Monster Slayer author is non-notable, and frankly I don't understand why paperbacks about serial killers sell like hotcakes. But after this complaint, at the risk of turning this beloved article into a Frankenstein, this article now cites Caspar Weinberger (a notable) and his extended memoirs about our foreign policy debate over a quarter century ago in Oxford. In 2001 a British reviewer of the newly released book commented: '"I have no doubt, however, of the highlight of the book. Weinberger recounts a debate he took part in at the Oxford Union in 1984 ...Weinberger gives a nice vignette of the debate ...and quotes his own speech at length ..." Oliver Kamm, April 27, 2002, http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0895261030.

Wiki only requires these basic criteria for notability, but please don't forget the unique breadth (from Anwar Sadat and Weinberger thirty years ago to last week's Dateline interview re Rowley) of public view at least in terms of geography and decade. Thanks for your consideration. Steve Aarons (talk) 12/18/2012 — Aaron095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep- The subject is notable for the reasons I have previously mentioned. Please see the Stephen Aarons Talk page, I am taking note of where I am changing/adding sources (Im not building Frankenstein - this article could have 700 sources but I know thats too many.) So what I am doing is changing sources about the different cases to ones about the defense Attorney. Of which there are many many many. It is my opinion this article will be even better sourced, and tighter after this debate than it was before. 221 Hits on the ABQ Journal and around 173 hits on the Santa Fe New Mexican plus a litany of other appearances, interviews, etc - and the fact these sources are used in the article makes the subject both notable in the context of New Mexico, and the context of American Criminal Law.Meanie (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this is nothing more than an advertisement/cv/resume masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - CV / Legal Resume. Notability is not inherited. Meaning, being the lawyer on a notable case does not automatically mean notability is passed to said lawyer. Looking at the sources provided for the (largely un-notable cases) his name is not even listed. WP:GNG clearly states: "SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE" PeterWesco (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just to note I am in the process of beefing up the references - As some of them don't reference him but there are a good 50 or more in the papers throughout the state - and some national media which do - and not in one specific case. Ill be detailing them over the next 2-3 days as I make the edits. I have purchased access to the paper archives for the area and have discovered Aarrons, in addition to what is on the internet has been cited 221 and 170 times respectively since 1995 in the two major papers in New Mexico - setting aside having been on court TV and done interviews with media on several cases. Perhaps some of the cases aren't notable enough to be in the article but you cant dispute the media cover that: The Cabin Killings, Robert Ray Fry Trials, the Robertson High Hazing Case, and the Quintana case got. They all made national headlines - and in all cases the attorney in question in this article was quoted multiple times by multiple publications. - Which is why I am working on changing out some of the citations because there are better references which will demonstrate notability.Meanie (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should re-read WP:GNG before looking at all of the 50 items that reference him. Quote: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail If a reference you are digging up is not about him, but merely contains a passing reference to his name in a larger topic then that does help. Same for press releases, "leisure pages", society section, etc. When an article needs to search high and low to find even passing mentions that is a red flag that the person is probably not notable from a NPOV. Wikipedia is not a vanity/self-promotion site used to enhance billable rates and create snazzy Google searches with a great infobox and picture. PeterWesco (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if you look at the two sources I got around to updating and adding today - you will see it would satisfy GNG as fully half of the articles are quotations of the individual and a discussion of how he made the argument in the trial. When I say there are a large volume of items in which he is the or a primary subject - I mean it - Its why I am being so stubborn about this. And over the next couple of days while this debate goes on I am going to present those sources - They'll be readily identified in the articles talk page to keep everything orderly. Meanie (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ill give you an example of the types of articles I am using to fix this - from Major Media sources in the state - IE the ABQ Journal. : Which is titled Defense Attorney goes on the Offense "The attorney for 20-year-old Shaun "Sagger" Wilkins pointed an accusing finger Monday in his opening statement at one of the state's main witnesses in the December 1995 Torreon cabin murders.

Defense attorney Stephen Aarons called Wilkins' trial "Popcorn's last revenge," referring to codefendant Shawn "Popcorn" Popeleski's expected testimony pinning the deaths of a young couple and two children on Wilkins and his buddy, Roy "Eazy" Buchner, 19. In Aarons' theory, it was Popeleski who committed the murders out of revenge after being beaten up and "ranked out" of Albuquerque's 18th Street gang.

Aarons took pains to point out to jurors that neither Popeleski, 19, who was charged as an accomplice in the deaths after being heralded as the state's chief witness, nor Lawrence "Woody" Nieto, 20, who was convicted last month as an accomplice to the murders and sentenced to 1301/2 years, will testify in person. Invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, they will testify only through video and audio tapes and won't be available for cross-examination.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Wilkins and Buchner, the suspected "trigger men," as well as Popeleski. Buchner is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 14. No trial date had been set for Popeleski as of last month. "

Would you not agree if the articles I am using are like this that would meet the criteria of substantial coverage? Meanie (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Meanie, you have made your arguments for keeping the article. There is no point repeating them ad nauseam, you will only damage your case as WP:TLDR will kick in.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a ton of references, but none of them discuss this individual. In each, he is mentioned as the attorney-in-fact, and sometimes he gives a quote. This is not editorial coverage. The article is so overly promotional, that it seals the deal. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO This is an ad for a busy, successful lawyer.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:RESUME. The refs that do mention Aarons are for the most part passing mention, which does not = notability. Appears to be WP:PEW and thus a WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - None of them discuss this individual? Did you bother to read "4. Depth of coverage?" The TOPIC of the seventeen page article which GNG does not require; the topic of the page one article, a primary subject in hundreds of pages of the book and discussed in depth in Caspar Weinberger's memoirs. /SASteve Aarons (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've crossed out your !vote. You may comment on this discussion as much as you'd like, but you may only !vote once. MisterUnit (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have reviewed the section where he was in the same room as Caspar Weinberger at a debate and also searched the memoir for "stephen aarons" on Google Books. I have now changed by vote. PeterWesco (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE PeterWesco (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:SIGCOV You did not change your vote, PW, but you should have. Don't confuse the fact that the "American Captain" shared equal time on the podium with Weinberger in the televised debate with how the latter makes reference in his memoirs. How many thousand hits to ""Aarons" did you find in the Monster Slayer book? No comment on the 17-paragraph article? Just the 391+ (by Meanie's count, not 50) newspaper articles spanning three decades alone: can they be "trivial" under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV when being quoted about participation in countless high profile trials? You decide. /SA Steve Aarons (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These kinds of resumes pretending to be encyclopedia articles seriously undermine the integrity of this project. --Daniel (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-evident WP:RESUME with some WP:INHERIT thrown in for good measure. Stalwart111 11:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000#601. Most in favour of keeping the article are doing so to have it redirected, and those favouring deletion opt to have it redirected. I think a straight redirect is a suitable middle ground here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(20692) 1999 VX73[edit]

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

Non notable asteroid, one of literally thousands being detected by modern telescopes. No references outside JPL database. Needs to be first detected by new equipment, huge or near earth etc to be notable. -MJH (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. By standard practice, if a catalogued asteroid lacks sufficient notability for an individual article, the page is converted into a redirect to the appropriate "minor planets" list, but never deleted. And the nom's notability criteria for astronomical objects appear to be their own invention. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are over 1300 near earth asteroids (this one is not), and a very large multiple of non-near earth (this is one) - here's a list of 300,000: [26]. My criteria is WP:GNG - I could find no significant independent coverage from secondary sources, just database rows. How can 300,000 minor planets be notable?---MJH (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a frivolous argument. Practice is clear, demonstrating consensus; the applicable guideline is clear; and the existing 20,000 or so pages regarding such minor planets clearly demonstrate how inappropriate such a random deletion would be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: per Hullaballoo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As much as I love astronomy, there is absolutely no reason to have up to 300,000 ten-word articles about space rocks with no notability of their own. Christ, those forementioned 20,000 minor planet "articles" (a dozen words is not an article) should also be merged/redirected, and their existance (could I have a category link please?) is not an excuse for one more substub. Reywas92^Talk 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for other significant parts of the natural world. We might consider whether to possibly merge or redirect to a list, but there is no argument that would justify complete deletion, and none has been given. The answer to everything suggested here is NOT PAPER. MJH's criterion is not the one that has been used here. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000 is the best option, as all the information in the current article is preserved in a useful table. Alternatively, we can and should make a bot to create 310,376 redirects or articles from List_of_minor_planets rather than dealing with this discussion each time ad infinitum. --Nixie9 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Nixie9 PianoDan (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG. Nothing else to add, really, apart perhaps a read of WP:PILLARS: look at pillar number one, click on the link for almanac, read the article, and take your own conclusions. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:34, 16 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 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 - Clearly fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for astronomical objects, which is a guideline, not simply an idea made up by the nominator. I agree with Nixie's suggestion that a bot should be created to redirect the rest of the non-notable minor planets to their respective lists. Neelix (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per Nixie9. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO, an established guideline that the keep arguments above seem to be ignoring without explaining why. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO (no merge is necessary since all the information is in the target article already). Consensus, as expressed in that guideline, is that merely existing as an astronomical object is not sufficient to confer notability. An article on this asteroid could not possibly contain any more information other than measurements of physical characteristics (orbital parameters, mass, albedo etc). In the unlikely event that the asteroid is studied in greater detail by scientists then a separate article can be created, but until then the topic should be handled as part of a list. Hut 8.5 17:00, 23 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) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John de Drury[edit]

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

The subject of this orphan looks to be, at best, a non-notable ancestor of just another English family, and at worst an invention of later antiquarians to give the family a more glorious past. The first three sentences are unsupportable. The next is deceptive in that the Battle Abbey Roll is not considered to be an authentic historical record. The only reference is a non-reliable personal web page. There is nothing here worth reporting in Wikipedia, and nothing worth merging anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep If they have no modern coverage, I tend to consider historical characters to be notable if they have at least some coverage in military/heraldic/etc literature; a Google books search shows a fair number of mentions. So among the several dozen billion people who have lived in the past 10,000 years, at least this guy rated a mention in a few books. This is an encyclopedia, after all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if a companion of William the Conqueror has no modern coverage they were probably made up, in this case by a Tudor-era person who couldn't stomach the fact that his neighbors could trace their trees earlier than he could. So, out of several dozen billion people who have lived in the past 10,000 years, this guy didn't. And before anybody goes there, he isn't notable as a fiction either. Genealogy during that era was an arms race, with every noble family inventing or having invented for them a line that could be traced back to the Holy Grail of Tudor genealogy, a 'companion of the Conqueror'. The Battle Abbey Roll, if it ever was a serious attempt at enumerating real people had so many names added to it to glorify families of the later periods by giving them such an ancestor that there is no particular reason to believe anyone in it is authentic (unless they are known from elsewhere, in which case it is superfluous). There is nothing notable about any of these invented ancestors. This one certainly hasn't received the significant coverage that is the basis for biographical notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)'[reply]

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue with someone who seems so knowledgeable about the topic. Changing !vote to Delete, per nominator. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Comment-- I am not sure that we can have an article on every knight present at Hastings, whther the Battle Abbey Roll is reliable or not. The source cited may be non-RS, but I would guess that RS lies behind it and could be cited if some one would take the trouble to find it. Whether the Battle Abbey Roll is considered reliable by historians, it is clearly reliable as to its own contents. My reaction to an article like this is that it is probably best merged into something else, but I cannot suggest where. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me disabuse you of this. The cited web page does not have a RS behind it. It is based on the ruminations of a 17th century self-promoter, as well as a completely ridiculous just-so story about the origin of the name. It quotes someone who is described as a New York City nerve specialist, as if that was a qualification for historical expertise. I have no doubt that Thomas Drury of the time of James I wrote such a document, but that doesn't mean a modern scholar wouldn't bust a gut laughing at it. Scholarly genealogists have spent the past 150 years trying to purge this nonsense from historical sources, but it just keeps getting regurgitated by people with more enthusiasm than competence when it comes to family history. Agricolae (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote, but I would still have perferred a merge target to deletion if one could be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 16 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, —Theo polisme 13:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. There seem to be some 19th century sources on heraldry and genealogy mentioning John de Drury, but they don't provide significant coverage, and I have no idea whether they are reliable in the first place. In particular, this source says John de Drury was the "son and heir of one of the companions in arms of the Conqueror" - if that's our John and the source is correct, the article's content would be flat-out wrong. I don't think these genealogical entries establish John de Drury's notability either way. Huon (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG without references, what choice do we have. If they are found, the article can easily come back.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:29, 19 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FormulaCalculator for MacOSX[edit]

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

De-PROD'd by author. "Unremarkable software. Article is purely promotional; software does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion." —Theo polisme 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) What is the requirement for a Freely available piece of software to be treated as notable (User count, age of program, other criteria) ? Ole Kristian Ek Hornnes (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PRODer. This is an advertisement for an application that does not meet WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. The article cannot decide whether it's about a specific program or about formula calculators for MacOSX in general, but neither topic seems to have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:20, 24 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bente Hammer[edit]

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

Not notable, sorry. The Google Books hits are from guidebooks/tourist guides - "Design from Scandinavia" might be a RS, but if so, it seems to be the only one, she has a single index ref, and the preview isn't working. Nothing obviously RS on her on Google (I specifically searched for "El Nyker Hovedg" too with no success) but someone who reads Danish may be able to find sources in her own language. Appears to fails WP:RS and WP:GNG Mabalu (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She has designed dresses for Danish royalty, a notable figure on Bornholm I believe. Guidebooks/travel guides are actually a good way to route out notable places and people. The fact that so many cover her actually suggests she is worthy of coverage on Bornholm. Ipigott is absent right now but I think there are enough hits in google books to at least past notability.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but where are the sources? I agree about guidebooks but they are not suitable for WP sourcing, and I noticed that all three guidebooks had similar wording suggesting a common text source. Actually, there are several Danish language sources on Google Books which MIGHT be enlightening, though the previews suggest lists/passing references rather than in-depth coverage.Mabalu (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done a more in-depth search for the subject and Margrethe, excluding her website and Wikipedia hits but really can't see anything that looks like RS. Am more than willing to retract this nomination if RS can be found. Doing a similar search with Ghika Norby looked a bit more promising, but many of the hits looked like they probably translated as "Textile designer Bente Hammer, John Doe, actress Ghika Norby, someone else, Jane Doe, at the same party somewhere." Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott is away at the moment, I'd have asked Aymatth2 but he's just gone too. I wonder if there is a Danish newspaper archive site. No hits in Highbeam.. [27] [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] would all quality as reliable sources but I can't access them. As far as I can see she doesn't have an article in a Danish biographical dictionary with significant coverage though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those book sources, but I'm not convinced most qualify as they appear to largely be routine name-checks and credits. However, this does show her name in a text context and in theory, would count. This and this might count too, but neither show the name in the snippet view so there's no context to judge from. I don't believe that the fact that someone's name appears in a long list of other names endows them with individual notability... Mabalu (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a skilled artist. The Danish press has covered her various creations in some detail. I'll try to expand the article in the next day or two. --Ipigott (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I have now included Danish press reports and TV programmes which clearly testify to the notability of Bente Hammer. I hope this resolves the doubts expressed above. --Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin WP:WITHDRAWN due to excellent work of Ipigott, which is very much appreciated. Mabalu (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Determination of the day of the week[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a venue for instruction manuals ElKevbo (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I agree the first third of the article is written in the form of general instructions and falls under WP:NOT, there is useful information in the second half. If someone was prepared to re-write it to explain how mathematicians have found various solutions to the problem (properly sourced), the article could be salvageable. With the original research and without sources, the article is just going to remain a difficult battleground for edit wars! Sionk (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems to be notable. I can't make any judgement on the quality of the information given since I am a member of the 99.9% of people who are not that mathematical. :-) Of course the article should be improved, if possible. -BigJim707 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the discussion is about the article as it is currently written and not about a hypothetical article about the same or a similar topic. I, too, imagine that an encyclopedia article could be written on this topic - but this isn't it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion discussions are never about how the article is written, they're about how the topic could be potentially presented using the sources available. If there are references that describe more than a how-to approach, turning the article into a stub and keeping those references is a valid outcome for the discussion. Diego (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weak argument since this isn't really a "how-to" article. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just one of the algorithms, the Doomsday rule, is the subject of an article with several relevant citations (it's also not incorporated into Determination of the day of the week yet). RockMagnetist (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One should give one's arguments; one should not simply say "keep" or "delete". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, descriptions of algorithms are perfectly acceptable; this is an article on day of week algorithms. Day of the week is a notable concept and so are algorithms for calculating the day of the week; such algorithms are needed for most calendrical calculations, manual or computational. Because the topic is notable and AfD is not for article cleanup (see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details), this article should be kept. That said, the article does have weak points; the lead and Useful concepts section are essay-like and need cleanup. But the subsequent sections, with concise descriptions of various algorithms, along with some references, seem fine. Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRESERVE. In this case, copy editing to simply remove/reword the how-to content in the article into encyclopedic style is superior to outright deletion. Also, a significant amount of information in the article is not comprised of how-to content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking the exact same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a couple of book sources that contain the term "calculating the day of the week", found from cursory searching: [35], [36]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the issue does not appear to be the notability, but that WP is not a "how to" site or an instruction manual. GregJackP Boomer! 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Certainly. However the article has significant content that is not in how-to format, and sources were provided based upon alternate search terms to suggest that alternate search terms are providing hits for this topic. This article can be rewritten so that it does not run afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO, and it appears that additional sources are available to aid in doing so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AfD C1 says that an article should only be deleted if it's not possible to improve it. It's obviously possible to improve this and people (Mark viking, Northamerica1000) have set out how to do that. Even the proposer accepts it's a notable encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the history of the article and its editors, it's extraordinarily unlikely that normal editing can turn this into a good article. This is one instance in which we need to start over from the beginning. ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely invalid deletion rationale, which I conjecture is purely based on the on the title of the article. The existence of several algorithms, such as Zeller's congruence, demonstrates this is unquestionable an encyclopedic topic. —Ruud 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article before nominating it so your conjecture is false. Further, I fail to see how the existence of other articles about algorithms argues for the quality of this particular article. Finally, this discussion is about this specific article and not the general topic; it's article for deletion, not topic for deletion. I agree that the topic is likely notable but this article isn't about the general topic but is focused on specific sets of instructions. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, sorry, despite its name this forum really is about whether the topic is notable or not. Broken article get fixed by editing, not deletion. —Ruud 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basically per what Mark viking said. The whole field of algorithms is "how to"; that doesn't make descriptions of notable algorithmic problems off-topic for Wikipedia. WP:NOTHOWTO is misapplied in this case: it's more aimed at keeping out game walkthroughs, troubleshooting guides, and recipes than descriptions of mathematical algorithms. And in this case, the attention to this specific problem given by such famous mathematicians as Charles Dodgson and John Conway makes it clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep T0 ElKevbo: Did you know how to determine the day of the week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.250.0.247 (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flawed deletion rationale because the issue is really only about part of the content. Instead of AfD, boldy rewriting to not read like a how-to would be first choice. Second choice would be deletion of how-to part or posting at talk raising concern about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - need rewriting not deletion. Claritas § 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not an instruction manual or a "how-to . . . .". Rather, it is a general discussion of the problem, that includes some history of thinking on the problem and, among other things, some of the techniques. And if it were simply a "how-to" article on this problem, the remedy would not be deletion, but would be be further editing to make it into something else. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a howto, and the subject is a valid encyclopedic topic. Incidentally, I remember reading about this in Conway, Berlekamp, and Guy's "Winning ways for your mathematical plays". I see that is not referenced in the article, but probably should be. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in the see-also section, in the link there to Doomsday rule. I agree that it would make sense to mention it in the main text of the article, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable: there is ample evidence of reliable sources for the history and analysis of various methods for carrying out this calculation. Of course an article on ways of computing something is likely to explain, analyse and compare ways of computing that thing: this is very far from being an instruction manual, the key difference being an analysis as opposed to mere recitation of the methods. The article does not appear to me to be in such bad shape that it would be impossible to improve it by normal editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - algorithms are a recognized subject of Wikipedia articles with their own style guidelines (MOS:ALGO), so they aren't covered by WP:HOWTO. The subject is clearly notable - there are already pages on Zeller's congruence and the Doomsday rule with enough citations each to establish notability (the Doomsday rule still needs to be incorporated into this article). RockMagnetist (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially the section of A tabular method to calculate the day of the week 61.154.208.12 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research! If it should be deleted, then should be the article of Doomsday rule. Q5968661 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Especially as most articles that cover specific events don't state the day of the week, and some of us might like to know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the old version of this article. Q5968661 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the old version of this article. That version is needlessly complicated. Also, note that this deletion discussion was the result of an edit war between me and several IPs (see the talk page of the article for details). Pokajanje|Talk 16:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of the world economy[edit]

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

Unreferenced, only two external links, one to an an Italian language blog and the other to an English article which has no apparent connection to the subject of the article apart from having the words "economy" and "end of the world"; that is, the article appear to concern the BS about December 21, 2012 while the Roberts article has no connection whatsoever to that. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is problematic because, though you can find several blog sources online speculating about the subject, I can't see anything of substance to justify this article. The news source in the article is about the threats to the US economy, which is not necessarily the same as the end of the world! Of course, if anyone can show this article is based on reliable research and is not WP:OR, I don't mind changing my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable nonsense. I'd really like to see the reliable source that draws a connection between the economy and "the fate, from an astronomical point of view, of the Earth". That kind of macro-engineering is beyond humanity's capabilities for the foreseeable future. Huon (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now it's a fringe view. If experts really thought the world economy would end soon we would hear more about it. If it does happen there should be an article on it, of course. BigJim707 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly, before 21 December 2012 - after that, there won't be much point anyway. Ha ha ha. But seriously, if the end of the world does happen, the resulting article will likely end up here at AFD as WP:NOTNEWS. Stalwart111 00:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 18 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 as hoax (non-admin closure). Huon (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Patron[edit]

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

The article was written in *bad faith* and obviously attack to someone named Justin Patron

Eat Bulaga! is currently being aired in GMA 7 in the Philippines and not in TV5 as mentioned.

Section Personal life is obviously a hoax as it is mentioning a marriage ceremony in the year 2031 and was also mentioned a previous marriage to Xyriel Manabat who is a Filipina child actress who is only about 8 yrs. old to this date. Mediks (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrawn (me). (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrimare School Inc.[edit]

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

As page creator, the article is really non-notable, unsourced, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:21, 17 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) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RetroBSD[edit]

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

An unreferenced (save for one wikilink) article about a hobby project. Couldn't find any news or book hits, and while there are many web hits, they are all self-published or in blogs. Doesn't seem to be anything in reliable sources out there. Might be some more things in the future if TechCrunch get hold of it it, but for now it just doesn't seem notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RetroBSD is a serious project. Yes, it started out as a hobby project, but is now so much more. It is at least as worthy of inclusion as the many other "hobby" operating systems that are in Wikipedia. Majenko (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any references on this, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't notable enough for its own page, can you suggest a page that it could be included in? Majenko (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the lack of any sources on it, nowhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles should be written from reliable sources first. I admit it's not at all obvious to newcomers, which is why we see so much hostility on AfDs, but the procedure is that you should start with the sources, then write the article around it. User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors is a good essay to read on this subject - note particularly that it says "Articles that cite sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted." If the article has no references at all, and we cannot find any suitable ones, then as Lukeno94 says, it cannot exist in any form on Wikipedia. Even if it were copied into another article, because it cannot be reliably sourced, another editor may challenge what is there and remove it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - Since you put it like that I can't really argue ;) So, it can be quite hard for a minor, little known topic to make it into Wikipedia, where it would be of most benefit. (Not necesarily this topic, but others, where sources may not be available online)Majenko (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it's frustrating (for the same reason my programming project and my band aren't notable enough for WP and would be sent to AfD if not speedy deleted in the same manner). The basic idea is that it's supposed to be consistently fair or unfair (depending on your POV) for all articles. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis looks like an interesting OS and it's impressive squeezing a BSD onto a PIC32. Unfortunately, while there are a couple of primary sources out there, I could find no secondary or independent sources that the article could be based upon. As this is a new system still under development, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON; there hasn't been time for the OS to grow to the point that independent reviews or news articles have been written. When those independent sources are forthcoming, recreating the article is a reasonable action. Mark viking (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Majenko, go and read Projects at the OSDev wiki, and learn the salutary lesson of operating system development projects on the WWW and how ephemeral they are. Wikipedia is for the ones that get independently documented and known. Most don't escape their creators and get known at all. FreeBSD has several entire books about its development and operation, in contrast. And it's not about size, or whether something is "minor". Encyclopaedias can have articles on asteroids, species of beetle, and villages. It's about whether something is a firmly, independently, and properly documented-in-depth part of the general corpus of human knowledge. And that means independent people with identifiable good reputations for fact checking and accuracy writing things up and publishing them outwith Wikipedia first. And yes, human knowledge is lumpy, bumpy, and unfair. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- software project that hasn't received external reviews or news yet. too soon, as Mark said. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 20 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. WP:CSD#A7 will do fine, this is just Youtube, i.e. web content. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind of Ooi[edit]

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

An article about what would seem to be some sort of home video that claims to be an upcoming reality show but with no indication of any network that might carry it. The "production" company, KobsterSnow Pictures does not seem to exist. PROD was removed with no explanation by unregistered editor. This should really have been a case for Speedy delete but no suitable category seems to exist Malcolma (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what little I can find, this seems to be a youtube series. I'll try speedying it under A7, although I'm not certain it fits under there. It should be speedied because this is ultimately just another non-notable YouTuber trying to put themselves on Wikipedia. I feel bad saying this about such a young kid, but he's just not notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:28, 17 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 procedural keep due to the reason for the proposed deletion being invalid. However, the subject of the article is concerned about incorrect information being in the article and something must be done about this. The last time this article was proposed for deletion I advised the subject how to go about getting such information removed. I have now done so again. Nominating an article for deletion is not a substitute to contacting OTRS. If the user contacts OTRS then we can work their concerns out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miya Ando[edit]

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

Miya Ando requests deletion of the article about herself due to inaccurate and misleading information. Ays0110 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons given are not valid criteria for deletion. Article appears to be sourced and easily fixable. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as per QuiteUnusual. This article needs to be massively nuked of garbage though, and was originally created by an apparent SPA. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Prod was contested by the journal's editor. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original PRODder. This is the first time that I get an edit conflict when taking an article to AfD with Twinkle... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a small novel in response that hasn't appeared unfortunately - or was it deleted? Will attempt again tomorrow with links. The journal is listed on ProQuest, ABI Inform, PubMed, EBESCO Host and HealthPremier. Alternatively how many reader requests would qualify as notable? Stephenthorpe (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

Comment PubMed lists exactly 1 (one) article from this journal (see here. This one seems to have been included because it was uploaded into PubMed Central, which is a major database, but not a selective one. The other databases that you mention are not major and/or selective either. I'm not sure what you mean with "reader requests", but if you mean with that something like page views or article views, as you can see from WP:NJournals and WP:GNG, those do not contribute to establishing notability at all (for rather obvious reasons, I'd say). --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the reason for the 1 listing on the PubMed is due to the closed access nature of the journal. Copyright is shared with authors who are allowed to publish and submit their own articles for hosting.

Here is the link to the EBSCO Business Source Complete listing: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=dbaff0ab-7a27-4937-9109-83e546307020%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&jid=2ZJI ProQuest ABI/Inform Complete: http://search.proquest.com/publication/43244# JSTOR: citations are common for the short name of the journal as well: "Group+Facilitation": http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicResults?hp=25&la=&so=rel&wc=on&fc=off&acc=off&acc=off&bk=off&pm=off&jo=off&ar=off&re=off&ms=off&gw=jtx&Query=%22Group+Facilitation%22&sbq=%22Group+Facilitation%22&prq=%22Group+Facilitation+A+Research+and+applications+journal%22&mxpg=11&aori=off&vf=jo

I'm not sure what is meant by 'not major' and 'not selective', but when Proquest approached us for listing in 2006 and EBESCO in 2007 they were two of the major indices around. I do appreciate things have changed in such a long period of time since. They did select our journal for listing, not the other way around. I know you won't necessarily appreciate Google Scholar as a valuable third party source however, here are the citations on what is predominantly a closed access journal: http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?as_q=&as_publication=group+facilitation The journal has been submitted to Scopus, which can take up to 6 months for review I believe. One key challenge we have faced as an Editorial Board in listing on the Web of Science is the requirement for access to the password protected members-only section of the iaf-world.org website. The IAF Board were not so keen on access to the members-only section going to an unnamed individual for the purposes of an index listing. By "Reader Requests" I mean here's one example from Belgrade in Serbia:

Email with subject line "Wikipedia pages"

--- On Fri, 8/10/12, <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> wrote:

   From: <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com>
   Subject: Wikipedia pages
   To: "Stephen Thorpe"
   Date: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:35 PM
   Hi Stephen. Hope you are well - sure you are busy :)
   I recently discovered that there wasn't a page about IAF on Wikipedia and so I just created one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Facilitators
   I checked to see if there was an entry for the journal on Wikipedia and see that there isn't, so I wondered if you might want to create one.
   There are quite a few guidelines about creating Wikipedia pages but most of them seem to boil down to making it informational and neutral rather than promotional and partial.
   I wondered if you might want to create a page for the Journal.
   Best regards,
   <Name_Deleted>
   -- 
   <Name_Deleted>
   MA Human Security & Peacebuilding, Certified Professional Facilitator
   Share in building hope at http://hopebuilding.pbworks.com and http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com
   View my pictures: <Name_Deleted>
   Visit http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com/

Can you please advise: I don't want to waste anyone's time - should I just wait until it's listed in Scopus and then come back as it will then meet the notoriety requirement? I can address the need for adding independent references to and possibly from the article if allowed. Stephenthorpe (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

I collapsed the email you posted above; it is not the sort of verifiable source that will influence this discussion. If you are aware of independent sources that discuss the subject in depth, this discussion is an excellent place to list them. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's neat that you can hide it and unhide it.
Now to clarify briefly - the email message inserted wasn't an attempt to provide a verifiable source, but to respond to the request above by --Randykitty to explain what I meant in my statement about "reader requests". I've provided an exemplar that I hope demonstrates what i meant. I have a number of others, but that one was concise.
Now academic journals aren't typically a hot topic in the local media (particularly if they have required an association membership to access). People don't typically write reviews about them like they do with books. It's also not one from the natural sciences - who are all metric focused. So do you possibly have a list of independent sources for academic journals that would satisfy the requirement or is it just the two open bibilometric indices of Scopus or Web of Science that are considered independent and verifiable? If all that can be considered is those two I guess I'll simply need to come back in 6 months and try again once the journal's listed in Scopus and it can be considered as independently verifiable by your team? What is published here outlines some of the challenges in this arena: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal#Prestige.

Would references in other books qualify? facilitator blogs? review articles on academic journals? It's a reasonably niche arena for academic journals on groupwork and GFJ is the only international one and it's published by the global association in this emerging professional arena with 1,300+ members in over 70 countries. If Scopus or Web of Science is all that counts and EBSCo and ProQuest, Google scholar have issues then I'm not sure there is any opening for possibility made available here?222.154.11.12 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

Under Caveat 2 in WP:NJournals "...however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources." Why can this caveat not simply be applied in this case? 222.154.11.12 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]

That caveat has to do with verifiability, not notability. Even if a journal satisfies the notability criteria, it also has to satisfy WP:V. It offers relaxed criteria for verifiability, but notability has to be independently established. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the journal meets WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. This is a well established journal that is indexed in major databases that focus on the scholarly study of business (EBSCO's Business Source series, ABI/INFORM, and several ProQuest databases). Additionally, a quick web search shows that articles in the journal have been cited repeatedly across both books on facilitation and scholarly articles on facilitation that appear in other journals. However, the article definitely needs to be fleshed out to help illustrate that fact (which I'm happy to help in accomplishing). Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Judging by the discussion around the creation of WP:NJournals, one of the primary motivations for creating this guideline was that it is often difficult to establish general notability for journals that are used as reliable sources in Wikipedia. So far, only one article from this journal is cited in Wikipedia (in Nonviolent communication). Also, it would be easier to judge notability of the journal if the article on its publisher, International Association of Facilitators, did a better job of establishing notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:02, 19 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, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network[edit]

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

A prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programs being broadcast. We are not a TV Guide. Delete this unreferenced and indiscriminate list please. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes this article different from every other "List of programs broadcast by.." articles? You argument doesn't include specific reasons why this one should be deleted, and I can't think of any. Absolutely no reason to delete.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to lack of valid argument. List's content should for the most part be verified without difficulty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A list of past- and present programs carried by a notable network is certainly an encyclopedic topic as long as its not being presented as a program schedule. I could argue this could do with a table to list elements such as if the show is currently running, the original airdates of the old shows, etc. but that's all cleanup and not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A commonly seen list of past and present television programs carried by a notable television network in the United States and Canada. While the list itself may not be in the best shape, it is certainly therefore non-notable and valid. This argument is simlar to what of happen for those television schedules, which all closed as speedy keep. TBr and ley 21:59, 19 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Jardine[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 15:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Fails WP:NMMA. However, after reading that he is coming back to the UFC and is scheduled to fight on UFC 157, I suggest we hold off on this one, and see what happens. Would be silly to delete it, just to have to re-write it. Personally, I would like to see all active top tier fighters be elligible for an article, and if they can be archived or deleted down the road if they don't maintain notability. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What TOP TIER title did he fight for? If it wasnt for a top tier title, or even a secondary promotion title, then it doesnt matter. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 1 fight for a top tier organization so he fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
News Flash Just saw this. We might want to consider holding off, or at a minimum, store his article in some archive or somewhere else because he is on his way to getting the fights he will need to meet the guidelines. FYI: http://www.ufc.com/news/ufc-157-fight-card-update. He is fighting on UFC 157. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He'd still need 1 more top tier organization fight to qualify for an article, and if he loses he will most likely get cut. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree with that. All I'm suggesting is lets put this one on the back burner for a little while instead of deleting it. If he loses and gets cut then delete it. If he doesn't get cut, he will get his 3rd fight and he would pass. This is why I believe it is silly to actually delete any active top tier fighter unless he gets cut without getting his third fight. Would it really hurt to delay the process to see how things unfold? Do what you guys want to do with it, to me its in a gray area and you can go either way with it, I was just hoping to get people to think about what they are doing and if it is really constructive to proceed at this point. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REFUND. Poison Whiskey 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear majority for keeping per WP:MMANOT, although there is also consensus that he only just satisfies the proposed notability guideline. Michig (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papy Abedi[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to not vote and simply comment that I didn't see the point of nominating articles for people who have a 90% chance of passing WP:MMANOT within a year (since he's still in the UFC), but after looking at his record Abedi had a fight for Shooto in addition to two for the UFC. That makes three fights for top-tier organizations per WP:MMANOT. He passes WP:MMANOT. He should not be up for nomination. Beansy (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If those two UFC fights were wins I would agree with the above. Two losses make a fight soon unlikely especially since the last one was eight months ago with no hint of another chance. Shooto Finland events art not top tier.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in any policies does it talk about a win or a loss mattering? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He will have a notable fight again. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's WP:CRYSTAL. Both UFC fights were losses, fails WP:MMANOT. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep - As he has fought twice for the UFC and is still under contract I don't see a clear reason. Although his fight for shooto was shooto:finland which should not be considered the same organization. He had a third UFC fight scheduled but bowed out due to injury, unless that injury forces him to retire or he is shelved for over 1+ years he will compete at least one more time in the UFC.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article technically passes WP:NMMA (2 bouts for the UFC and 1 for Shooto). He's also still on the UFC roster: link. Poison Whiskey 00:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As PRehse states above, Shooto Finland events are not top tier. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Says who? It is apart of the Shooto Umbrella. I think you all should read that ref I posted and find out what Shooto really is. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going by strict policy (which is the norm around here), Shooto (all of it) is considered top-tier. Going by practicality, this guy is almost certainly going to have a third UFC fight as he is still under contract (he even had one scheduled at one point but got injured). Either way the article is not something that should be deleted. Beansy (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did think it was only regular Japanese Shooto that counted, but Shooto is listed as a top tier promotion, and it never did specify the location or brand type of Shooto, it just said Shooto. Caio Magalhaes was kept largely because of his fights in Shooto Brazil. So i guess Shooto Finland could count as well. All interesting points brought up here. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jussier Da Silva was #1 when he came from Shooto Brazil to the Tachi Palace Fights. But that's neither here nor there. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Possible Keep Per the letter of the law of WP:MMANOT and for consistency's sake, although Shooto Finland being considered a top tier organization seems a little off to me. CaSJer (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Robertson[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NMMA states "Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they...Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMANOT)..." WP:MMATIER, which is listed under WP:MMANOT, lists Bellator Fighting Championships and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) as top-tier MMA organizations. Robertson has fought once in Bellator and twice in the UFC. Therefore, he has clearly fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization and thus meets WP:NMMA. Unless a compelling rationale is given to rebut this fighter's presumption of notability and establish that WP:GNG is not met for this fighter, then the article should clearly be kept. -RonSigPi (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands I think "Wikipedia is not a directory". Damn that 3 fight rule and all of :mmanot .Of course it is of no consequence, but I'd like to support this guy cuz I'm a hardcore mma fan/fighter but I havent even heard of him. In fact I did a double take because I thought he was Rob Emerson. Delete PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article passes WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NMMA. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:52, 22 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Lane (fighter)[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AdminWP:NMMA has been established by a consensus of people in the MMA project. According to those rules, all a fighter has to do is have 3 pro fights for a top tier organization, which this fighter has. There are some people who don't want Ultimate Fighter fights for the UFC to count, However, they have yet to get a consensus of people together to agree to modify the currect WP:NMMA. This article like several others, should never have been nominated per the guidelines established by the conensus of people in the project. Anybody saying it should be deleted because it doesn't meet WP:NMMA is clearly wrong, and their vote shouldn't be counted unless they are able to establish a legit argument for deletion per the guidelines.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes you can bang. On wikipedia! PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PASSES WP:NMMA. He is notable enough to have been in top tier promotions such as the UFC, Bellator, and the NAAFS. Take a look at the history of the person recomending the deletion. I have had an issue with him trying to keep changing up my work, get it deleted, and start editing wars. I put quite a bit of time into this article, he is a notable fighter. Please don't let him convince you to destroy by work (not trying to attack the guy, just want to point out that it is odd that almost immediately after he got unblocked for initiating an editing war he would go to my articles and recomend them for deletion). Thanks. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has no official fights for the UFC. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the history of the nominator. Jakejr (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be your work, but it has to pass the guidelines. If it does, then it will be kept, and if it doesnt, it will be deleted. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:NMMA. This article had no business being nominated because it clearly passes. Please review the guidlines. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: How many articles have you writen? How many have you went around recomending to be deleted? How many of these guys and organizations you suggest are well known organizations and fighters in the MMA community. Even a casual fan knows who many of them are. I guess I am having a hard time trying to understand why you are participating in this project? You really don't seem to be that knowlegeable or even interested in MMA. I'm not trying to say that you aren't, just pointing out the way it looks to other people. Are you trying to pretend like you are admin or trying really hard to try to get an admin tag? What is it? If for some reason you want to participate in this project, how about going through the list of people, teams, and organizations that need articles written and start working on a few of them. How about you help us build this project, and not try to tear it down. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has written more articles than you. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~
He passes WP:EFFECT with his memes Plus he was on TV for awhile. Why does everyone pretend that being on TV for weeks at a time doesn't matter? Please see WP:TUF for a thorough explanation as to why these fights do matter.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. The references to Sherdog angst aren't likely to be helpful in the AfD results. I didn't agree with the deletion of UFC 155 and UFC 156 either, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. CaSJer (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has only 1 fight for a top tier organization. Jakejr (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMMA. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE about WP:NMMA : For everybody trying to say that it fails WP:NMMA, you might want to take a look at those requirements again. He has 2 fights in the UFC and 1 fight in Bellator (both organizations that are clearly top tier). He also has 6 fights for the NAAFS, which is also a top tier organization. There is absolutely no question that he passes WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NMMA. Subject has never fought for the UFC, exhibition bouts does not count. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so are you trying to say that his 2 fights during the show weren't put on by the UFC? We all know that isn't true. Are you trying to say they weren't professional fights? Did you know that it is illegal for a somebody to compete in non-pro MMA after they are a licenced pro? So are you saying all of these guys on TUF should be locked up as criminals? Really? If you don't like the guidelines established by the consensus, then try to get enough people to change them. I don't think you have as many people who want them changed as you think you do. Either way, the current guidelines are estbablished, so they need to be followed, and you can't just change them up yourself because you don't like them. You are the one who kept saying I needed to be less of a fan and follow the guidelines. Isn't it funny that it is you who is advocating not following the guidelines established by the consensus.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the one who doesn't like guidelines. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to argue that we should dis-regard them. So we are supposed to use them when they back your point of view, but when they don't back your point of view, dis-regard them? That is what you are apparently trying to convince us.Willdawg111 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source to back your claims? looking at Sherdog i have not seen the TUF bouts listed as professional fights. Poison Whiskey 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dawgs question remains unanswered "so are you trying to say that his 2 fights during the show weren't put on by the UFC?". Well it's not illegal in Oregon as per eicholz record in oregon. But I have tried to use similar logic of not discounting these guys exhibition fights on TUF. However it seems like people are lacking the common sense that is noted WP:NOTE. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What it appears to be is a couple people who are very vocal about not wanting to count the TUF fights. The problem is they don't have the consensus they claim they have, because if they did, then it would be really easy for them to get a consensus and change up the guidelines. Their actions are showing us that they don't have the backing of the group in order to get the change made, so they have to go around trying to claim they have something they don't. TUF fights are professional fights and they are put on by a top tier promotion. It's just so simple. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sherdogg doesn't record every single professional fight. Why are you even asking for a source? Are you trying to claim the fights never took place? The only reason you would need a source is to confirm they took place, and they all happened on video, were shown on international television. Here's a source for you, how about you go to the wikipedia page for that particular season and the fight and results are on the page. Is that a good enough source to prove the fights took place?Willdawg111 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the easiest source to pull up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Fighter:_Team_Carwin_vs._Team_Nelson. There are references to places like MMAjunkie another other places to verify that these fights happened. If you are really questioning it, they are showing replays on Fuel TV and the DVD set should come out in the next couple months. Nice try, but I'm pretty sure the UFC can prove these fights took place.Willdawg111 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the bouts happened. But they were not professional fights. The guideline (WP:NMMA) is clear: "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". TUF bouts aren't listed as professional fights in any reliable source. Poison Whiskey 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were professional fights. It would be illegal for them to fight anything else. If they weren't profights, they would never have been sanctioned and both the fighters and the UFC execs who set them up would be locked up for doing them. Not to be funny, but I'm heavily involved in the sport and since I'm a ref and a judge, I deal with sanctioning and all the behind the scenes stuff on a regular basis. All the stuff that goes on before the fight, before the fans ever step through the door, I'm there. Everytime you try to dig for a reason to circumvent the guidelines, you guys look more desperate and more ingorant about the sport. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can say they're a ref or a judge online. I could say I'm a King, that doesnt make it true. And even if it was true, that still doesnt make the fighter notable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my MMA licenses have nothing to do with his notability. That is determined by the guidelines that say he is notable. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Evidence to support the athletic commision's involvement in Lane's TUF fights. the following quote taken from the aforementioned is evidence to further advance the claim that the TUF fights should "count" towards meeting WP:NMMA despite already passing WP:GNG

"Lane broke down in tears following the loss, his first as a professional fighter. The unemployed father felt he let his family down, but is determined to come back better and stronger." then it goes on to say "After the fight, Coach Nelson complained to Dana White that Marunde didn’t actually make weight. White was dumbfounded by the allegation. “You can’t fix stupid,” commented White. “If the commissioner said he made 170, then he made 170.” " PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still an exhibition match. Can you explain me why they don't count for the professional record? Poison Whiskey 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, we have explained to you probably over 10 times what exhibition means. There is a long, complete explanation in the project talk page, which you have been a part of. Exhibition just means the results weren't turned into the ABC soon enough to be included on the record, which is a deal worked out by the UFC so that people don't know the results before the show airs. There are 3 levels to MMA :toughman, ammy, and pro. ammy and pro can be exhibition or non-exhibition (meaning the results are turned in or they aren't turned in). Once you turn pro, the only MMA you can fight is professional. They can be professional MMA fights where they results get turned in or professional exhibition MMA fights where the results don't get turned in. They are still professional fights. I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you to help you understand it any better. If you specific questions about the relationship between the ABC, the state athletic commissions, the promoter, and the fighters, or how the sanctioning works, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. I want to help make people in this project as knowledgeable as I can becuase it will make everything better.Willdawg111 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say about The Ultimate Fighter: Live? Poison Whiskey 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote mma.com "For a variety of reasons, including weight disparity and the demands of entertainment, Exhibition Bouts are held, in which the contest is unscripted and hard fought, but the results do not count on a fighter's Official Record." Folks are getting hung up on the little details. All we need to know in regards to his exhibition fights are that a. They happened (for reasons explained by mma.com), b, it was aired on a popular cable TV. c, that he was was also on TV in general for 6 weeks or so. D. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't, making your !vote invalid. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the process does not work like that. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote is the same as argument. It is read as "not-vote". --LlamaAl (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up LlamA1, since he passes WP:NMMA, it's your vote that doesn't count unless you can come up with a legit reason why he isn't notable. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. I want the article to be kept (I even created the dab page and helped you build the article), but it doesn't meet WP:NMMA. The fights which count are the regular ones, not TUF fights. I understand that those bouts are professional, but they don't enter in the definition of "three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". Meery Christmas! --LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are professional and they are put on by the UFC, a top tier organization, so I don't know how they "don't enter in the definition of "three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". By the way, don't get me wrong, I appreciate help I get while I try to figure out how things work. I have read up on things that people have pointed out to me. I'm sure you have seen me change up some things as I learned more. It was actually somebody pointing out WP:NMMA and me reading up on it that made me realize that TUF fights count. I hope people don't take anything personally, I am just passionately defending what I think is best for the MMA project. Hope you have a Merry Christmas also. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fights that don't appear on his professional record clearly can't be used to show notability. The earliest discussions on fighter notability at WT:MMANOT specifically excluded TUF fights that weren't the finale. Including exhibition fights is like a boxer including results from sparring sessions. Jakejr (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I question the mma knowledge of those who were taking part in those early discussions. This is evidenced by your comparing sparring sessions to exhibition fights. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good tactic--question the competency of those you disagree with. I'm sure Paralympiakos would be glad you said he didn't know anything about MMA. I wasn't among those editors but I'd AGF. Would you prefer I use baseball's exhibition games which also don't count as appearing in the major leagues? Jakejr (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Are you reeferring to the grapefruit league or whatever that is? Either way I'm sure you could find news coverage of these exhibition games in question. isnt what you are referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF? How did we go from talking about mma topics to baseball? It is illogical to compare televised events to routine sparring matches and these baseball games. Unless the sparring and baseball games got third good third party coverage I would say that is not an apples to apples comparison you have been attempting to present PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a really desperate attempt to deflect people away from the FACTS: TUF fights are pro fights. TUF fights are put on by a top tier organization. TUF fights MEET notability guidelines established by the consensus. When you don't have the facts on your side, I guess you have to go on a desperate attempt to deflect the focus away from the facts out into left field somewhere. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about non-finale TUF events (as requested): 1. The UFC doesn't even include those fights in its records or statistics, 2. MMA sources such as sherdog and mixedmartialarts.com don't count them as fights, and 3. The WP consensus which created MMANOT and NMMA was that only TUF finale fights count towards notability. You can see that if you look at the oldest version of MMANOT's first archive. Jakejr (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't have a single notable win. Entity of the Void (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's got 2 wins and 1 loss for a top tier organization. Notability only requires 3 fights.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires 3 top tier fights, of which he has 1. Jakejr (talk) 15:22, 26 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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinc Pichel[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I read that correctly he won three exhibition fights on television. Then fought again on a notable card. Passes GNG I'd say. Also see WP:TUF for an explanation as to why TUF fights matter and should count towards the 3 fight guidline. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Poison Whiskey 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PASSES WP:NMMA. He has particicpated in 5 professional fights put on by the UFC, and he only needed 3. Way more than enough. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not about being a MMA fan. We should respect policies and guidelines whether we like them or not. --LlamaAl (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: He is a UFC fighter. I was just pointing out that anybody who is even a casual fan would know most of these guys that are being recomended for deletion, so there is no doubt about them being a notable figure. I'm just in shock right now. We have a couple guys who I don't think have created a single MMA article going around trying to recomend everything for deletion. I am participating because I'm heavily involved in MMA and very passonate about it. I guess I just don't understand why people are doing this.Willdawg111 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA, isn't inherently notable just because he's a UFC fighter. CaSJer (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA because he doesn't have the top tier fights required. Jakejr (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMMA. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everybody saying that he fails WP:NMMA needs to go back and look at it again. It only requires the fights to be put on by a top tier organization and to be professional. TUF fights fall under that category (eventhough they are refered to as exhibition, that only means they aren't reported to the ABC in time to be put on their official, permanent record). If you don't like the way WP:NMMA is setup, then you are going to need to talk about changing it, but never the less, until it is changed, TUF fights are included, which means this article should never have been brought up for deletion. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the original discussions at WT:MMANOT you'll see that TUF fights were specifically excluded with the possible exception of the finale. You should also notice that none of the MMA websites include those fights in their record since they're considered exhibition bouts. Jakejr (talk) 20:57, 23 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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Cofer[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes WP:GNG He won an award on a big show. Then he fought several exhibition fights on Spike. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — Only 2 bouts for top-tier organizations. It fails WP:NMMA, but the fighter is still on the UFC roster: link. Poison Whiskey 00:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MMANOT, at least for now. If he has a third fight in the UFC, the article can always be recreated. CaSJer (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not yet meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned several times above, fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are weak. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Penner[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Ryan Vesey 07:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails both WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We are trying to delete way to many articles. Are we trying to completely get rid of MMA on wikipedia. The person suggesting the deletion just instigated an editing war a couple days ago over this article and now wants it deleted. C'mon people. If you think the article needs to be improved, lets improve it.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What you are bring up is irrelevant to the AfD. You were part of that edit war as well. But thats in the past, and beside the point. What policy based reason are you giving to keep this article?--JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response He is a UFC fighter, not to mention a fomer King of the Cage and MFC fighter. Do you not look at the articles you are trying to delete. All of this information is in the article. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMMA requires that a person is involved in at least three fights in a top tier organization. See WP:MMATIER for what is included. Ryan Vesey 15:30, 19 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. Per WP:RELIST, only three relists should occur. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobip[edit]

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

Not notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 04:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is sourced to a combination of press release announcements and blogs; I'm not finding sufficient WP:RS references to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now sourced to articles by a national business daily, an independent regional daily and the national chamber of economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upanishadee (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 05:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being one of the world's largest SMS service providers is notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Four relists is a joke, just close this thing... Carrite (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This AFD has languished for nearly a month without any editors contributing to the discussion, so I think it's time to close it based on the information currently available. The nominators rationale for deletion seems sound and the subject does not appear to meet the general notablity guideline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DEVS Award[edit]

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

This is apparently a niche, nonnotable award. No independent references in article, so it fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I initially placed a prod tag on this, but it was removed without comment and without adding any sources. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tucker Max. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers[edit]

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

Contested prod. This kindle download doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. The first two references have to do with earlier works by the author and the other two link to Amazon and the author's website. Not finding evidence that this is independently notable. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a bit early, but I'm leaning towards redirecting this to Hilarity Ensues and adding a subsection about it getting released at the same time and being a bit of an extra to celebrate that book releasing or just redirecting to Tucker Max in general.User:Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tucker Max. I couldn't find anything to justify redirecting it to the third book. It exists, but it remained largely un-reviewed and unnoticed in relation to his third book. I'd be best served as a redirect to the author's bibliography.User:Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promo for a non-notable book... Carrite (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:27, 18 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denon AVR-2800[edit]

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

And:

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

Non-notable products. AVR-2800 article mainly consists of specifications. Contested PRODs by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PRODs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - couldn't find any RS reviewing or announcing anything about these products. Articles originally created by a SPA whose only acts was to create both articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This product doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 18 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. Courcelles 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson VT0950[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Contested PROD by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously, why is there an article on a generic remote here on Wikipedia? No RS present in the article, nor could I find any. The article was originally PRODed in 2007 (!), yet surprisingly never went up for AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a product that isn't notable. Rotten regard 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomond deeds[edit]

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

Unclear notability; unable to locate significant coverage in references. Zujua (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no indication that these "deeds" are noteworthy at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew !vote: the article now does indicate notability. I am, however not voting "keep" since I am not sure whether this deserves a separate article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text of this article isn't even one complete sentence, and the sentence fragment doesn't even suggest notability. Nor are any sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommendation withdrawn in recognition of the improvements that have been made to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted or claimed. JIP | Talk 06:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, I would contend that any surviving historical Irish records are notable following the 1922 fire at the National Archives of Ireland and secondly, the further reading section cites a perfectly valid reference, although I note it should be cited as a reference rather than just further reading. I accept that the article as it stands needs further work. Are we rushing into deleting something for the sake of it? --Senra (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did anyone actually read the linked citation Hardiman, James (1826)? Here is a quotation from it: "... but chiefly the policy and care of successive English grantees to destroy all evidence of previous rights and possession of the natives, caused those domestic documents to become so scarce, that the few which escaped the general wreck are, at the present day [1826], esteemed valuable rarities, ...". My emphasis. QED --Senra (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Senra says, and Uncle G, and me. Man, if we could spend some time on article improvement rather than on deletion nomination. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that the article does not do justice to its subject. If this were about England, a collection of land charters would probably not warrant an article, but the loss of so much Irish history, due to the dislocation casued by the Cromwellian settlement and then the destruction of archives in the 1922 troubles probably justifies the article existing. Perhaps, Hardman's comment needs to be taken inot the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Perhaps, Hardman's comment needs to be taken inot the article", Done --Senra (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to address the concerns of Senra and Drmies: I'd like to point out that the reference Senra is referring to was not included at the time of nomination, and so at the time, there was really no indication of how the deeds were notable.1 I could have assumed that if they were, indeed, being preserved in the college, they were probably notable for something (although not necessarily to the scope or standard which would necessitate having their own dedicated article), but no source was provided, nor, as I indicated in the nomination, was I able to locate such sources. It had remained tagged as being unsourced and of unclear notability for more than five years. It seemed that no one was exactly rushing to fix it, so I don't think it was too unreasonable to think, after my admittedly brief search, that the article couldn't be fixed. As it turns out, I don't have Hardiman's 1826 essay in my library, but I truly thank Uncle G for finding it. In any case, I apologize if I was too hasty in my nomination, but now, at least we have something to work with. Zujua (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I unreservedly apologise for my facetious comment to all those who voted prior to my first post at this AfD. In fact, I had already recognised my mistake --Senra (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the first article to be bad for five years. This isn't even the first article that was bad for five years before I edited it. North Asia (AfD discussion) languished as a pitiful stub for five years. Nun's Well, Cannock Wood was drivel for six years. Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 20 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) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Anthony Gratton[edit]

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

Article's author seems to be a single purpose account to promote Gratton and his wife Sarah-Jayne Gratton, who both claim to be experts in promotion using social media. True to form, this article is supported almost in its entirety by WP:PRIMARY sources, or sources written (or created) by Grattons. It even has a promotional quote from a book that won't be published till 2013. The one source with any reliability is the article in the local town paper. This in itself doesn't make Gratton notable. Author has been given plenty of opportunity to improve the article but has refused to do so. It remains as a promotional page and I think its time is up. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional to the point of being worth a speedy delete. I suggest you add Sarah-Jayne Gratton to this deletion discussion. Note that the "chief editor" and "protector" of both these pages, Opn800 (talk · contribs) has now been blocked for his edits to these two pages. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Sarah-Jayne Gratton for deletion earlier this week and decided there was sufficient difference to warrant a separate nomination. But the difference is slight, I admit! The author has been extremely aggressive, so I didn't want to fight a battle on two fronts, so to speak. Sionk (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I somehow didn't notice the AfD header on the other page. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really sure what the subject is supposed to be notable for. The promotional tone of the article doesn't help but there seems to be a suggestion that the subject has done lots of little bits here and there and has written a couple of fairly non-notable books in his spare time. Being the author of a "best-selling" book (37 on Amazon UK?) isn't a notability criteria for the author (WP:AUTHOR) or the book (WP:NBOOK). He doesn't seem to have won a literary award for any of his books - something that is a notability criteria and probably the closest one to that assertion. If you removed all the promo-spam, self-aggrandisement and material supported by unreliable references, there wouldn't be much there at all. Stalwart111 02:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:PROMOTION. Pburka (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only claim to notability is that he's a bestselling author, but with no evidence thereof. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 20 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 about what to do with this material. Nyttend's argument rules out deletion per WP:ATD, but the community is undecided between keeping and merging. Interested editors may wish to pursue consensus for a merge on the talk page. NAC—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Cold Springs, Buffalo, New York[edit]

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

An article about a small neighborhood in Buffalo, New York. It does not seem to be notable in any way~~, and is unsourced~~. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources today. Although this is a small article, it is a starting place to add more information on this Buffalo neighborhood. Tommycw1 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what little content it has is now sourced. But what relevant, notable information is there to add? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough and the standard for places is rather low anyway. Eeekster (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say it "seems notable enough". How so? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NGEO, "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." This does not meet GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NGEO refers to unofficial neighborhoods and such, but this one appears to actually exist per the sources. It is also delineated on Google Maps which can be another helpful indicator. Actual neighborhoods are presumed to be notable and don't have to satisfy the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might have useful information to explore: [37] Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and leave a link to Buffalo, New York (where it is already mentioned) at Cold Springs. There's nothing useful to the reader here and a standalone article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The neighborhood boundary information is useful, surely? That alone would argue toward a merge and not a delete. Official neighborhoods are notable. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The best thing would be to have a map of Buffalo within that article with the neighborhoods marked on it - it would certainly make the section on neighborhoods more useful to the reader. --Michig (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could easily be created; there's a map here from the University at Buffalo. Cold Springs is "C." Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 16 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 02:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has potential. This source has some of the neighborhood's history. There are also depictions of the changing demographics of the neighborhood in the 1950s here and here. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After the research done above, it seems to be a notable neighborhood. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title. No opinion on what to do with the article, but verifiable neighborhood names shouldn't be deleted; if it shouldn't have its own article, it should be redirected to the city article. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avaya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Application Server 5300[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With main Avaya article, is multisourced from a mixture of corporate and government sources. Is a notable company, while spammy, does not appear to have originated from the company itself. Rather it appears to have been created by a "telco geek". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No indication of independent notability. --No unique names 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears this deletion nomination is motivated by the same faulty rationale provided by user: Alan Liefting, user: Nouniquenames and user: Sue Rangell in many other deletion discussionas & processes some of which have been successful in removing valuable information. More backbground was available at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel, but no updates can be posted because the page has been archived prematurely.

For more see user:DGG comments here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avaya_1100_series_IP_phones Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the"faulty rationale"? And what are your reasons to keep it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Liefting, Where do I start? Have you read the links I provided above before asking your question? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You referred us to DGG's comments elsewhere, but they were commenting about a major product line. The Avaya Application Server 5300 seems to be a very specific (non-notable) product. So the comments don't apply to this discussion, do they? Sionk (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider merging with other similar products by the same company,--but only similar products in the same product line, and preserving the information. Major products from major companies are notable, but may not be worth individual articles. Any merges must however preserve the information. My comment yesterday giving a little more analysis does apply to this, and to all of this entire series of nominations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia-of-all-things-except-the-technical-world. and not just the physical world: The article about every commercial and noncommercial organization, or every creative person, or every political and religious concept, serves in some extent to promote it by providing accurate information about it. We have enough problem with the true advertising and promotionalism for all of these. All relevant WP policy and guidelines are designed to permit and indeed encourage neutral description. I look forward to WP not just to reversing all previous deletions and over-merges of these products, but the much harder & longer job of writing them for the hundreds of thousands of products in all fields of commerce and technology for which we need articles . Our model is Diderot and D'alemberts Encyclopedie, famous in the eighteenth century and still in ours for the detailed description and illustrations of technology of the period--and the long continued detailed coverage of technology in succeeding encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is way below the level of notability of the current crop of product articles. This is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but in this case I think it is applicable. We are never going to get articles for the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of products out in the market and random product articles such as this one are outliers that do not belong in WP. The article is a sort of odd one out. As with other topic areas we should stick to the more notable items. Also, we should not try and turn WP into a product catalogue. These product related AfDs are a bit of a headache so we really should do something about improving the WP:PRODUCT notability guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

otherstuff in this case a reasonable argument, but it's an argument for undeleting the other stuff, the articles that have been deleted. There is no reason why we should not have articles for "thousands or millions" of products--we're not paper. all we need is someone to write them, and the first step in getting people to do this is to not throw out the relatively few we already have. Alan's criterion is "more notable", but that's not the WP criterion=--the WP guideline is Notable. I could just as easily say that we should keep only the "more notable" major league baseball players, or the "more notable" cities. "more notable," , is the criterion for an abridged children;s encyclopedia that doesn't want to burden the infants with more knowledge than their teachers think they can handle. We write for adults. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we limit WP articles to the "more notable" topics in other subject areas (people, bands, books, films, etc) so why not products? And with the declining number of editors who is going to maintain product related articles - let alone write them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 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 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an apparently non-notable product, cited to the Avaya and Nortel websites. No evidence of reliable, independent coverage. Reads like a blatant advertisement. Sionk (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam without encyclopedic value or particular notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 22 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, defaulting to keep. There isn't a clear consensus here, with valid arguments on both sides, though those in favour of keeping are in a slight majority. Michig (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gothmog (Third Age)[edit]

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

Extremely minor character, is mentioned in one line of The Lord of the Rings. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 21:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; while the character is a minor character in the novel, the role is significantly expanded in the movie adaptation, and I think there's enough additional information here to pass the notability threshold. I have some concerns about referencing, but that isn't for AFD to deal with.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significantly expanded? Who are you trying to kid? If by significantly expanded you mean he gets an extra scene in the extended edition? GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to kid anyone. I would consider the transition from a single line reference in the book to several seconds (if not more - I haven't seen the movie in a while) of screen time, including lines, plus a specific design guideline from the director on the look of the character, to be "significant", regardless of the scene in the extended edition. Compare "Proudfoot", also a single-line entry from the novel, at the beginning of the book, who did not get any more screen treatment than originally envisioned by Tolkien, as clearly not notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic any character from any book who's made an appearance on-screen is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. The film character is undeserving of an article because he doesn't have any coverage in 3rd party sources. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan's Forge. There is more here than just the information from RotK. Oh, and it's referenced (though more references would be nice). - jc37 07:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only got primary references, one for the book and two for the film. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete lack of notability. Primary references and the subject is not covered by 3rd party sources in any depth. Fancruft. Davémon (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series. This list has an entry about the film character that also mentions Tolkien's Gothmog from the novel. All that needs to be said about the 3rd Age Gothmog is currently written in the list. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist sufficient to keep this as a separate article per the GNG. The above redirect is problematic precisely because Gothmog is not an original character per se, although admittedly one which has been morphed substantially from the book. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive commentary which exists on virtually all aspects of tolkien's works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the audio commentary for the the Lord of the Rings movies does discuss Makoare's portrayal of Gothmog, I don't think that alone is significant, because its not really independent of the subject. However, not only are there a few third-party sources[38][39][40][41] that discuss the article's subject, but there is an Australian beetle, helferella gothmogoides, named after it[42]: "The species name is derived from Gothmog, a commander within the evil host of Mordor, and oides,latin suffix signifying “resembling”." There is also a tree named after the article's subject,[43] which is the "second most massive stringybark" (although to be fair this source doesn't say which Gothmog is it named after, since there are two different Gothmogs in Tolkien's legendarium). I think these factors demonstrate the notability of the subject, and that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.- Sudo Ghost 13:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for digging out those sources, the beetle is very interesting. I do feel they are a bit shallow, and do not address WP:N"Significant coverage": that sources address the subject directly in detail. Is there something out there (perhaps a special-effects magazine) that goes into the required detail? Davémon (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is this one, that describes Gothmog apparently in some detail, but I was only able to find a cached snippet and not the whole thing: "Perhaps the most extreme representation of this visual horror is Gothmog, most notable for his command, “Release the prisoners.” The monstrousness of his face is matched by his actions: he returns only the prisoners' heads. It is arguable that" and then it cuts off. The Google books verstion is returning a 404 error for me for some reason, and the Amazon link doesn't provide any way to view the contents, which it usually does. I'm still looking though. - Sudo Ghost 14:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, SudoGhost. Here is a working Google book. Gothmog, however, is really only treated with the one sentence you quoted above. The next paragraph goes then on with the importance of meals and the eating habits of the various races and characters. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some of your sources to the article. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GBooks link (and adding the sources in the article), I was hoping it went into more detail about Gothmog specifically, but I think what it does say is more than a trivial mention since it's pointing out that Gothmog is the pinnacle of "scary orcs" and details why; no original research is required to extract the content, which seems to satisfy the "significant coverage" part of the WP:GNG. I'll keep looking but I think what's currently in the article is enough to warrant an article, although better sources would certainly help that along. - Sudo Ghost 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite the incredible insignificance of this fictional character in the scheme of world history, it appears to meet WP:GNG and at least having a separate article is logical in the scheme of the many LOTR related articles we have. The most intriguing part of this AfD is that a user named after a good Tolkien character made the nomination and is trying to delete an evil Tolkien character. Could the bias not be anymore obvious?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I could see editing Template:The Lord of the Rings to split off "minor characters" into a separate section. Everyone doesn't need to be versed in the minutiae of Fatty Bolger to understand the books.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage on the subject in non-primary sources beyond trivial mentions. I don't understand how some user can claim the article meets GNG while not providing a single source that would actually make this article meet GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trivial mention. Mentioning Gothmog as the "iconic scary orc" and then going into detail as to why is not trivial, it is the very definition of significant coverage as defined at WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You won't build an article only from that. Per WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Barely a sentence on the character is trivial. Counting on that and the trivia of a real-life bug being named after the character is going make a very poor article that would be unlikely to survive another nomination. Notability isn't only about finding a certain number of sources but whether a worthy article can be made out of them. I don't think that's the case here, and I'm apparently not the only one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between WP:N and WP:V. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject, and content in the article is verified by reliable sources. It doesn't really help to cite WP:WHYN when there's already more than "a few sentences that could be written and supported by sources about the subject", so that's not a concern for this article. Given that the prior "delete" arguments were for a version of the article that only used primary sources, it would appear that, until clarification is given to the contrary, you are the only one. - Sudo Ghost 19:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no "significant coverage that establish the notability of the subject". As far as I can see, the article still only uses primary (or at least non-independent) content (the movie trilogy DVD commentary) and a few new trivia but that doesn't change the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been demonstrated, this is not a trivial mention, at least not as defined by WP:GNG. An article's notability does not depend on how many primary sources are in the article, and the article does not only contain primary content. Being based primarily on primary sources is an issue, but that's an editing issue, not a notability issue. - Sudo Ghost 23:33, 16 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 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are enough to establish notability. Clearly a topic of interest to many, if mainly for his disgusting appearance in the movie.BigJim707 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. Primary references and the subject is not covered by 3rd party sources in any depth. this is a trivial mention - it's 1 sentence. WP:GNG states "significant coverage", that would mean it is discussed at length. Davémon (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per Davemon, no secondary sources substantiate notability here. Claritas § 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having multiple species named after this is quite an accolade and the topic appears as a headword in a variety of reference works such as The New Tolkien Companion. Warden (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubRosa[edit]

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

This article is about a very insignificant thing and is not well written. I don't see how it can be improved much. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NN---MJH (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article is assuredly not insignificant. subRosa is an internationally active group of artists. This article can be improved by discussing more specific information about the group and listing some of their projects. They have published a book entitled Domain Errors about their practice and the cyberfeminist movement. Their work has been shown nationally and internationally, associated with institutions like the Art Institute of Chicago and Brown University. See their projects here: subRosa.

WP:ARTIST, WP:ORG Smacktina —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST does not apply here because this is not refering to a single person. WP:ORG doesn't apply unless you can dig up some reliable sites at which this has received significant attention. United States Man (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do academic articles about the organization count as "significant attention"? See Motter, Jennifer L. “Feminist Virtual World Activism: 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign, Guerrilla Girls BroadBand, and subRosa.” Visual Culture and Gender 6 (2011): 109-119 and Flanagan, Mary, and Soyin Looui. “Rethinking the F Word: A Review of Activist Art on the Internet.” NWSA Journal 19 (2007): 181-200. I would also like to include that subRosa's work is funded by Creative Capital, a nationally recognized nonprofit organization. See this page about subRosa that lists their achievements. Some of these achievements include: a grant from Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, inclusion in the Pittsburgh Biennial in 2011, as well as publishing widely in academic peer-review journals such as n.paradoxa, “Bodies Unlimited: A Decade of subRosa’s Art Practice.”. subRosa's work has been included in exhibitions internationally, such as CyberFem a show at Espai d'art contemporani de Castello (EACC), Castello, Spain. If I need to list more, I will. But this should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacktina (talk • contribs) 23:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smacktina, links to the two journals could help support notability provided they are not unknown blogs. As the work of this organization has been widely exhibited, you can establish its notability by citing links to reports (critical or otherwise) in reliable independent sources such as major newspapers, magazines, television coverage or books (i.e. not self-published) or any awards? Kooky2 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kooky2. I added links to the academic journals, which, surprisingly, have the PDFs available for free. The group was also included in this book, The Object of Labor published in 2007. They were also featured in this exhibition at MASS MoCA, a notable US contemporary art museum: http://www.massmoca.org/event_details.php?id=38. They have also been added to The International Year of Co-operatives Pittsburgh Organizing Committee for 2012: http://iycpoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/directory.pdf. I also am linking two exhibition reviews about their work that appeared in the Pittsburgh Biennial, one from the Pittsburgh City Paper and one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacktina (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the references provided. I cannot see why they have even be imagined as being blogs, DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of coverage across multiple reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 16 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 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The references given so far are pretty good, and I see lots more coverage of this group when searching GBooks for "SubRosa Faith Wilding". Altered Walter (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to R U the Girl. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'so Krispie[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Subject won a reality TV show, and is only notable for that one event. Her singles and album failed to chart, and she has received little coverage thereafter, so this article fails WP:MUSBIO. As such, the subject is not notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. — ξ ^xplicit 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to R U the Girl Same rationale as the first nom; no everlasting notability beyond her UPN reality contest and last nom was influenced by WP:SPA and low-edit accounts. It's been eight years, she should've done anything by now to go beyond the reality show. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 10 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, Courcelles 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above, doesn't pass WP:MUSBIO. Has (self?) released an album and two singles, no indication that they charted or had any impact. For what it's worth, I really liked the "Slumber Party" song, too bad it wasn't a hit. :( Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:07, 17 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) 07:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Mall, Nagpur[edit]

AfDs related/similar to this article:

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

Flat-out fails WP:GNG and WP:G11. It has not been a subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Period. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actually the same company managed different Poonam Malls in Nagpur, 3 billion rupees were invested in the 2008 expansion, see http://www.indiaretailing.com/News.aspx?Topic=1&Id=1728 . See also http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/17nagpur.htm --Soman (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N Kumar Group operated Poonam Mall in Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur & it developed three new Poonam malls in the city. That's who we should write about. BTW, notability is not inherited. We don't need to give individual articles to briefly described short topics. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 03:01, 15 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, Courcelles 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No independent coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Strong). See WP:SIGCOV and WP:G11. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CryoJet[edit]

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

The term Cryojet does NOT appear to be commonly used as defined in the article, and there are no references in the article to help make it verifiable.

This article was created almost entirely by a single individual, and it is also the only article on Wikipedia edited by that individual. The image linked in the article was also created by the same individual, and is described on the Wikimedia Commons page as his "Own Work". There may have been some research done on this process by the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, but it is not clear to me if this research ever resulted in a useful or notable industrial process.

A quick internet search of CryoJet + cutting or machining did not produce any useful information that I could find to support the article. The closest thing I could find is a technology called "IceJet" which uses CO2 gas to create ice particles for industrial cleaning, decontaminating, or polishing surfaces, but not for cutting.

CryoJet appears to be a registered trade-mark for a company that makes a special-effect machines to produce plumes of "cryo fog" for live entertainment venues such as stage shows and concerts, not an industrial cutting process.

I think this article may be a good candidate for deletion. -- Burnishe (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article may be terrible, but the technology is notable. If there is a more appropriate name or another article to merge it into, I would support that. 1292simon (talk) 03:00, 15 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, Courcelles 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search of Google Scholar finds numerous references to what seems (superficially at least) to be the same as the subject of this article - but a great rewrite is in order, and perhaps a renaming. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical study of literature[edit]

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

It's just two giant quotes. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is a writing problem. Is the "study" itself notable? According to article International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature there is a society devoted to the subject—that should count for something, if it can be confirmed. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be a valid topic, but this article is devoted to a pair of excessively lengthy quotations rather than using a clear, encyclopedic style. If this topic is worthy of an article, it would be better to start over and write the article using clear paragraphs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame on you for not reading the article history, Metropolitan90. Uncle G (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep now that the two giant quotes have been removed. JIP | Talk 06:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always read the article history before nominating something for deletion. The article used to be a stub with a lot of further reading citations, before one editor got at it. Indeed, it was very probably the blanking of that that caused Comp1234 (talk · contribs) to re-add the old content at International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature. As for whether the subject is encyclopadic: Of course it is! By definition, even. It's covered in an existing encyclopaedia. (Ironically, the person who copied the non-free content wholesale claims to be the person who wrote the existing encyclopaedia article. That doesn't make the claim true, of course, nor does it make wholesale copying the other non-free content prose valid.) Moreover, that encyclopaedia article was properly cited in the article, right under your nose, at the time that you nominated this for deletion.
I suggest, Prof. Squirrel, that you learn how to deal with copyright violations when people just blam non-free content over the top of existing articles, take in hand some of the tens of sources that are cited in older versions of the article, and have a go at writing. It's not as if you don't have, right in front of you, an existing encyclopaedia article showing what should be covered in the article. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right; sorry about that. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a withdraw statement? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per work done by Uncle G. It needs expanding, a lot of it, but not of the copyvio sort that was the reason for the article being nominated for AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article is important. It certainly needs expanding and I will be working on it as well, as it is a subject that interests me. With a little work, I am sure that we can expand this article to something more than a stub. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now a worthy stub. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have researched the subject and added a bit of academic prose that I hope will polish the article a bit. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 19 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hernández (fashion designer)[edit]

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

Request for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Possibly self-promotion of person who is not notable, but would like someone to give it another check. Acmilan10italia (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~/comment OK, I've had a quick look around (I did a couple weeks ago when this first came up, but thought I should do another check beforehand). There is coverage of this guy, mainly local Boston news coverage, but not an awful lot. Very little in Google News archive (mainly about Gabrielle Giffords's intern, and a soccer player who share the name). The article is too promotional in tone and the editor has solely worked on that page and no others. I think there is JUST enough out there, but don't really feel the need to ferret it out. The article does cite a number of offline sources which I am inclined to accept in good faith as they don't support grandiloquent claims, plus they give dates, page references and authors, enabling them to be easily double-checked. Considering these in conjunction with what is available online, I think he is just barely notable enough to squeak in, but if there had been no refs or only vague refs given, based on the tone and writing and online sources, it would have been a clear delete. Mabalu (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single working reference is a self announcement that he launched something. Nothing to support notability, sorry. ---MJH (talk) 05:34, 12 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, Courcelles 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep International notability, community involvement and recognition by the United States Small Business Administration are sufficient, not to mention the people recommending this article for deletion are not experience in the fashion industry. Additionally this is not an article to self promote, it is an article to inform a large audience interested in learning about the designer and how the designer evolves. User:albeiro777 (User talk:albeiro777) 12:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC) #REDIRECT [[44]] additional press and legitimate links available.[reply]

— albeiro777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please advise. Request for exact note on what is "too promotional in tone," for revision. Original writer/editor of this wiki piece is not the subject nor affiliated with the subject's press. Supplementary sources and news links are available to remove flag for deletion. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestige Communications (talk • contribs)

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

- information Prestige Communications of Boston is a P.R. firm specializing in the fashion industry. This s.p.a. account has been blocked as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [http://www.prestigecommunicationsofboston.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CineEtLaMode.jpg and Hernandez is one of their clients! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands at the moment. Very 'adverty' (starting with the address in the first line) and very poorly sourced. Written by a single purpose account. Of the sources in the article, the offline sources aren't sufficiently described to enable verification, Let's Talk and Stuff magazines do not seem to be reliable sources (with an editorial team etc.), his 1999 award is cited to a 1993 article! Online I can see a few press release sources and non-independent websites. Fails [[WP:GNG] at the moment. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sionk - Stuff Magazine is a Boston-based publication, owned and distributed by the Phoenix Communications Group - highly respected and "reliable" within Massachusetts. (Feel free to google it.) As for Let's Talk Magazine, it's neither a physical publication or a public/profitable group, but is essentially an online/social media effort and fairly popular in Boston, especially amongst the colleges/college students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestige Communications (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Let's Talk is a local blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I generally feel that Wikipedia lacks adequate coverage of fashion-related topics, this subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Not seeing reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth or evidence that Hernández has had an impact outside of the Boston area. He might deserve a mention in an article about Boston Fashion Week, but does not merit a stand-alone article. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sidenote - Gobōnobō, would you please consider doing an article on Boston Fashion Week? As anybody who's ever seen a picture of me can tell, fashion is not my forté - I find it incomprehensible and decadent, and the style customarily used to write about it contemptible and actively repugnant; but I am told by those who do care about it that our coverage here is weak: probably a relic of gender bias. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't mince their words. Respect. (and also, ouch! I think you're a bit harsh on the "customary style", whatever that means, but still, respect...) Given the recent developments here, I am striking my weak keep for a delete vote. Mabalu (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to Highbeam and saw two articles there from the Boston Herald. One is actually about Hernandez, "Salon owner puts his best face forward", (now added to the article as a ref). The other has a paragraph about him in an article about one of the contestants in the Miss Massachusetts pageant (he did her make-up and clothes), "Beauty pageant contest lets designer give her a winning look". I also added an article about him in the Bay State Banner as a ref, "Hub designer driven by deep passion for fashion". These are about the only reliable sources in the article, and the only ones I could find. But this is highly local coverage and both the Boston Herald and Bay State Banner articles are basically interviews with the subject, verging on the "puff piece". I can find no evidence of national or international impact as a designer, nor any reviews of his work in the major fashion press, e.g. Vogue, Women's Wear Daily, etc. His notability, to the extent there is any, remains very local to the Boston area. I'm pretty much inclining to "delete". The current article is horribly written promotionalism and needs swingeing copyediting, but that in itself isn't grounds for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per Gobonobo. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 20 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. Courcelles 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior (Kesha song)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a musical recording which fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not inherited. - Mr X 02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we are not a fansite. Killer Chihuahua 11:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:23, 11 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, Courcelles 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The albums' notable. This isn't, and it isn't even really an article. Not useful as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the album has been reviewed but there is insufficient information about the 'Warrior' track to justify an article. Sionk (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wouldn't even worry about redirecting to Warrior (Kesha album) as the search term is too vague. Also needs removing from Warrior (disambiguation)#Songs and singles. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 20 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 Wonder Girls. Courcelles 01:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sunmi[edit]

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

This is not very well-known member of Wonder Girls. She left the group in 2010 and nothing has been heard from her since then. I think it's better to be merged to Wonder Girls Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Killer Chihuahua 10:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a famous member of Wonder Girls. She join lots of group activities. It's not a good reason to delete this artivle that she left the group in 2010.Znppo (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 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, Courcelles 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable on her own, only one reference present in the article. If someone with a knowledge of Korean can expand the article with valid sources, and those that show notability, I'll change my vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:17, 17 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. Courcelles 01:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refill Key[edit]

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

This page contains no references and has been near-orphaned for years. MrMarmite (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say Redirect to slot machines, in the off chance anyone ever searched for this term; but I can only find this term here on Wikipedia. I suggest this is either a very informal name or we've been hoaxed. Delete Killer Chihuahua 10:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 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, Courcelles 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. Huon (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SAP (EP). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Mudgarden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND: #1, has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works, though I did find a Rolling Stones article here that really tries, in one sentence, to puff up Layne's "resume" with a mention of Alice Mudgarden. #2, "Right Turn" was not a single (or so I gather; being on the Black Hawk Down soundtrack doesn't make it a single, correct?). And so forth. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet "Alice Mudgarden" wasn't incorporated as an official band name company (aren't bands essentially tiny companies with employees?) and I wouldn't know how to check. But opinion aside, I don't see how this article is notable. Of course, according to WP:MUSIC, that doesn't mean the article has to be removed, but I'm suggesting it because this information is essentially covered in the article Sap (EP). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sap (EP). This appears to be a one-off writing credit rather than a band. On the basis that someone may search for this a redirect may be appropriate. Certainly isn't worth an article. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It almost became a supergroup, but is not properly sourced, so I wouldn't die if it was deleted. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except nowhere outside of Wikipedia do I see this is a supergroup. Isn't calling this a supergroup like calling every song with more than one guest musician appearing on the song as a "supergroup". Crediting the song with an intentionally humorous conglomerate band name doesn't a "band" make, but that's my opinion and probably not valid here. I'm all for a redirect, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig; this was never a thing outside the context of that EP (which is really f'ing good, btw), and the information is already contained there. postdlf (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 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, Courcelles 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I love the SAP (EP) and it's track Right Turn, but this band really isn't a band it was a concept... sort of... whatever it isn't notable regardless. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:36, 17 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. Courcelles 01:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propworx[edit]

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

This company seems inconsequential, in that it lacks significant coverage beyond the article in Variety and apparently inherits its notability via the equipment and properties that it auctioned. Mephistophelian (contact) 08:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is inherited. 1292simon (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 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, Courcelles 01:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, notability is generally not inherited and though there are a few exceptions to that widely accepted rule, I don't think this is one of them. For a company like this to be considered notable, we would need for it to have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm certainly not seeing any depth of coverage that would substantiate a pass and being the auction house for the props from a couple of notable shows does not, in my opinion, confer notability. Filing for bankruptcy is also, in and of itself, not notable. Stalwart111 02:33, 17 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. It's very unusual to close as delete when the nom withdraws, but: 1/there is nothing notable except the DSC, and there iz no evidence of it. 2/I am not convinced the sources are substantial, except the obit. 2a We can use editorial obits as a source, the prohibition is on relying on ones written by the family, but I doubt the reliability here. 3/ The article is not neutral 4/ It seems to me that the way it reads it is a copyvio DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis R. Whelton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO article seems to be based on family folklore and a single database entry, no editorial discussion of this individual. Receipt of this award alone does not establish notability unless further cited. Sorry. -MJH (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an admin - WP:WITHDRAWN per Comment below, although there is a delete !vote. I am fka MJH--Nixie9 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, delete - Google News archives provided three results which appear to be interesting (suggesting he was promoted to Sgt. and Lt. years after WWI) but they don't provide much through the previews. SwisterTwister talk 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will scan and update primary source. What specific items are requested? Details on him being the last survivor of his platoon? That he was declared dead by the US, and arrived home to his grieving parents? That he was a noted celebrity in Boston for months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akatie (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Personally I believe everything you are saying about your family member. Now, for it to be an article in an encyclopedia, you need to find independent 3rd party references, like newspaper articles, that cite each fact that you want to include in the article. See WP:REFB and WP:BIO for instructions. The Boston Post & Herald sound like the place to start. Good luck!---MJH (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - References supporting notability have been found in abstract form [45], and work is underway to substantially improve the article. Courtesy keep.--Nixie9 (talk) 17:03, 16 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, Courcelles 00:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a number of source extracts or summaries (provided above) that (combined) would likely be enough to meet WP:GNG were those sources replicated in a modern context with regard to a modern subject. Notability is not temporary so those are enough for me. The article needs work, sure, but they are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sorts of problems if we have reliable sources. Stalwart111 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with a single second-level decoration. The only real source is an obituary in a local newspaper. He does not meet notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hang on, why on earth was this relisted when the nominator withdrew the nomination a day before it was relisted? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the nominator withdraw the nomination? I don't see it. I see someone else claiming to be the nominator claiming to withdraw the nomination despite an existing delete vote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Click on the userpage of the nominator - you'll find out that they are indeed the same person. (MJH renamed themselves to Nixie9) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter now - just like it couldn't be deleted with a nom alone, it now can't be kept with a withdrawal of that nom alone. Consensus-building has started but the consensus wasn't clear so it got relisted. Withdrawal alone doesn't stop an AFD unless it was in the face of a WP:SNOW keep anyway. Stalwart111 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my withdrawal noted my prior ID and existence of a delete prohibiting speedy close. My new opinion is now registered and the debate should continue.--Nixie9 (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, this is a fail of the GNG, the assertions of the two Keep proponents above notwithstanding. First off, obituaries fall precisely under the footnote to the GNG which holds "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Secondly, as we all know, the GNG requires that a source describe the subject in "significant detail." Mere mention of his name in a brief piece about his son's Purple Heart award does not cut it. Thirdly, the biographical information given demonstrates nothing notable. Last survivor of a platoon? The US had tens of thousands of platoons in WWI. That Whelton was awarded the Croix de Guerre? France awarded over two million of them in WWI. Sorry, but we're talking about a minor civil bureaucrat, who fought honorably in a war where millions fought honorably. Ravenswing 23:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this source [46], which compiles the names of everyone ever to win a DSC, the article's assertion that Whelton did is incorrect. Ravenswing 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Đặng Trần Côn[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is also a complete lack of sourcing required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The "masterpiece" written by this author is a poem that is also similarly not notable or sourced. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is somewhat un-encyclopedic and has no notabiltiy. sageinventor 00:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Keep - "Dang Con Tran + poet" 171 Google Books hits includes on the first page World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia Volume 6 2007 Page 829 "Three great works of Vietnamese poetry were written in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Chinh Phu Ngam (Lament of the soldier's wife) was written first in Chinese by Dang Tran Con ( 1710-1745), It was almost immediately immediately translated into Vietnamese by Doan Thi Diem ( 1705-1748),..." Exactly what WP:NOTABILITY criteria are needed for eighteenth century Vietnamese poets beyond print source references of this kind? As for the poem, The Song of a Soldier's Wife is the most famous of all classical Vietnamese poems, and second only to Nguyen Du's The Tale of Kieu in Vietnamese Literature as a whole. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Do any of the sources really discuss the poet? If not, a merge and redirect to the poem will suffice. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Google Book hits above are discussions such as Asiatische Studien 1956 "Tradition tells us that Dang Tran Con was an ardent scholar, and being deprived of light for his studies as a result of the edict, he dug a subterranean room where he could study by candlelight. The poet, hearing of a famous woman scholar, .." In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per In ictu oculi. The Google Books results shows a number of academic published sources that it is a real person who wrote what a number of sources say is a famous or notable poem. Meets WP:GNG. (You know, WP:BEFORE is a good policy if you don't want to end up being this guy.) —Tom Morris (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the fact he is still written about 250 years after his death is some indication he's important. The article cites some published sources. I'm no expert, but I doubt C18th Vietnamese poets are over-represented in the English language Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I feel that there are plenty of reliable third party sources in the Vietnamese language (as well as a few English language sources) available (as a quick two-second cursory search on Google Books I performed before voting) to establish notability, meeting WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BASIC and meriting a keep. Although to be fair, I still must somewhat defend the nom as searching for foreign language sources (Vietnamese in this instance) can be a tad difficult if you don't have a browser that allows for instant translation or copy & paste of Vietnamese characters Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query again: for an author's work to make him sufficiently notable, WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 or 4 have to be met. The English sources do not meet criteria 3 or 4, as far as I can tell. Do the Vietnamese sources fulfill either? Or do any of the Vietnamese sources cover the author is sufficient depth to be notable otherwise? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see some Vietnamese sources: work's title 征婦吟曲-Chinh phụ ngâm khúc (author's name in Hán Tự - 鄧陳琨)and Viện Việt Học Institute of Vietnamese studies - search phrase "Nguyên tác chữ Hán của Ðặng Trần Côn"; his work also was translated in to Japanese language [47] by Takeuchi; in English [48] by Huỳnh Sanh Thông; in French [49] and Femme de guerrierby Hoàng Xuân Nhị; in Korean by Be Yang Xu more. Regards--Cheers! (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers: Please reread my query. I was not asking for Vietnamese sources in general—I have no doubt that the poem is covered in Vietnamese sources! I asked if there are either Vietnamese sources (or sources in any language, for that matter) covering the poem in a manner fulfilling criteria 3 ("The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") or 4 ("The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.") of WP:AUTHOR or covering the author extensively otherwise. However, I see that the sources cited by In ictu oculi and Bonkers seem to fulfill these, so I am !voting...

I found this book listed Đặng Trần Công is one of 10 "Thăng Long nhân kiệt".--Cheers! (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per myself. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite not knowing the language it is clear from the Google searches, Google Book searches as well as the arguments made above that this is a notable author. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 18 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.