Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 November 22 November >

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 speedy keep. content problems should be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the subject looks to be notable enough, the article is predominantly written by younger children which this game was intended for, trying to stick their name into the credits of the page. Jeremjay24 22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would also like to add that around one or two years ago, User:Briguy9876, User:Gordonrox24, and I were the main contributors of this article. Since they both joined Roblox's voluntary community moderation team, I became the only writer abiding by Wikipedia's conflict of interest. Before anyone else comes to debate whether it should be deleted or not, I'd like to share that the article is not maintained by anyone with an adept knowledge of contribution on Wikipedia. Now if we were to delete it, we'd be deleting a page written like an advertisement, but at the same time we'd be getting rid of a topic that has enough notability to have its own Wikipedia article. If we were to keep it, we're going to have to get experienced Wikipedians to moderate and rewrite the article to keep the inexperienced contributors from turning it into something that it's not supposed to be like. Jeremjay24 22:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A deletion is not necessary, but perhaps a re-write is. Roblox is a notable topic and video game website that has been discussed by quite a few third party reliable sources ([1]). I think a satisfactory article can be put together with some good, thorough research. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to place any vote here, as I've not been active on Wikipedia in recent times, however I am of the opinion that we've never deleted articles because they are poorly kept. Instead, we work to fix them.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No actual reason for deletion has been specified. This is ridiculous. It is the most popular kids games in the US. I haven't laughed so much (other than April Fools nominations) than I have in this nomination. You are a few months early buddy... Statυs (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Tripp

[edit]
Linda Tripp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This may seem weird, but I believe this runs afoul of WP:BLP1E. Tripp played a relatively minor role in the Lewinsky scandal, and that's it. Everything else in the article (which may be overly negative) stems from sources on that scandal. It's time to redirect this to the Leminsky scandal article and move on. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and speedy close, WP:BLP1E is meant for tangential people, basically passers by with little real connection to historical events, so that this nomination is very weird and an absurd proposal for a WP:N person after all these years as, since by now the whole universe knows and it's written in umpteen books and hundreds of thousands of WP:RS that Linda Tripp was a key player who trapped and tricked Monica Lewinsky to spill the beans on her affair with Bill Clinton, who had sworn under oath that he never knew Lewinsky and that led to his impeachment. Ridiculous nomination that looks more like a prank and a violation of WP:DONOTDISRUPT and WP:POINT due to what's now going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam. The nominator must be joking that he wants to squeeze this article into the Lewinsky scandal article, then he may as well just keep going and nominate all the 22 articles in the Category:People of the Lewinsky scandal for deletion as well and just squeeze them all into one super-duper Lewinsky scandal ubber-article, starting a new trend on WP, as if we have now run out room for articles in defiance of WP:NOTPAPER, and as if that is the only topic in that complex set of events and personalities. WP is not here to help historical revisionism and the cutting down of key historical facts and persons involved in those major historical events. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't tell if you are trying to demonize historical revisionism, but it is actually a commonly accepted process in academia; interpreting events in new ways is part of a historian's job. Having said that, it really has no place in this discussion, and you've diluted your argument by including it (though yes, it's a nice one-line zinger).
    • The article, as it stands today, is entirely focused on her role in the Lewinsky scandal. Should she have actually done something notable outside of it, I'd be fully in favor of covering her in a separate article, but her entire article here can be covered at Lewinsky scandal without expansion. It's not like there isn't any room there (28,000 bytes total). Also, I don't know if you haven't noticed, but there are plenty of independently notable people in Category:People of the Lewinsky scandal, and I'm certainly not planning to merge Bill Clinton into the scandal article, so that's a grossly unjustified extension of my argument. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know Ed, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry the way this crazy application of WP:BLP1E is being bandied about ad absurdum. After all you are a student of history. If one takes the case of Gavrilo Princip all he did was pump a few bullets into Franz Ferdinand and Duchess Sophie, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, triggering World War I. That's all. It was just a one time event by a nobody, doing one thing, the Duke's driver happened to take a wrong turn in his fancy jalopy and bang Gavrilo was there in a side road by chance yet. Hundreds of millions of people have fired bullets into other people and they don't get an article, but Gavrilo Princip does. Ever wondered why? Because it has historical significance and is part of a broader story that cannot exclude him or what he did. So now that you are at it, feel free to nominate the Gavrilo Princip article because it violates the new holy gospel WP:BLP1E as a one time event by a nobody who got famous not on his own right but because he happened to fire at some famous folks that just happened to trigger a world war. IZAK (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, are you legitimately attempting to compare the trigger of the First World War (~37 million casualties) to a sex scandal? Your arguments are nonsensical. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • His argument is that notability on a one-event shouldn't be reduced to counting with your index finger, but in general the broader scope of impact of the one-event should be taken in context as part of the notability evaluation process. WWI body count is an extreme example of making the point about "broader scope of impact", and extreme examples are often used to make clear the logic behind one's meaning or point, so it is often useful. That is what IZAK is doing here ... he isn't deciding a morality compare -- sex versus blood -- for Christmas sake. (Ed please tell me you get that. And if you do, I think u should apologize to IZAK for your wreckless misreading his argument, your "your arguments are nonsensical" comment.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the Lewinsky scandal and the larger issue of the impeachment were happening today, I don't think this would have run afoul of BLP1E, although the article would have been typically created WP:TOOSOON. That whole thing was basically four people: Clinton, Lewinsky, Ken Starr and Tripp (well, and a blue dress). She was plastered all over the news for the better part of a year, her background scrutinized, her motivations questioned, etc. No, this would have been a typical breakout article out of the main one, and it wouldn't have been considered BLPE1 when all was said and done. It is also part of the historical record at this point, and I doubt it would be hard to prove that. Finally, with respect to the nominator, perhaps discussing whether or not an article meets a guideline or policy is better done actually discussing it somewhere rather than trying to get it deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 01:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:Policy and guidelines to support your keep comment Sue? - there are as I see - three delete comments, these rule out your desire to speedy snow close - Youreallycan 21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SK point 1. The nominator is asking for redirection, not deletion. That is an editing action that can be discussed on the article talk page, as it doesn't require any administrator to hit the "delete" button. Bringing this to AfD seems to be more a personal attention-seeking device rather than a considered action designed to improve this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the accusations of bad faith? Ed's a long standing editor in very good standing. Attacking him like this is pretty silly. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's precisely because Ed is a long-standing editor, and admin to boot, that he ought to understand that redirection is something that can be achieved without the drama of an AfD discussion. I can't see any reason to start this discussion other than to say, "Look at me! I'm bold enough to start an AfD about a subject that the whole world knows is notable!" Avoiding personal attacks doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out the blindingly obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that wasn't my intent, and if you knew me, you would know that I'm not the type for attention-seeking. Anyway, there aren't many ways to garner multiple comments on a proposal like this, and AfDs are commonly used for this purpose, SK or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am as big a BLP1E zealot as they come, but Tripp passes the John Hinckley (event is notable, person's involvement in event is critical) Test as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for anyone even marginally aware of the politics of the period, her name is indelibly engraved in their minds. BLP1E does NOT mean that a person famous for one event is not notable. its much more nuanced than that, per Tarc and the Hinckley Test.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I've heard of them" doesn't mean they pass 1E ... this article, in my view, has run afoul of WP:PSEUDO. I would be looking for specific, notable events outside the Lewinsky scandal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ed, the point is that there is an artificial memory hole created by younger Wikipedians who aren't familiar with historical events outside their limited frame of reference. The fact that there is almost unanimous agreement to keep this article says more about your age than about Mercurywoodrose's argument. Tripp's notability isn't in question. I realize that you are still a student, but in the future, it might help if you do WP:BEFORE and try to falsify your hypothesis for deletion first. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ed: The Lewinsky scandal was not a "tiny blip" on modern American history. The build up to it spans many years, if you know the history of the Clintons, with their many scandals, such as the Whitewater scandal, Filegate, Travelgate (not to mention stuff that went on when they were running Arkansas) that the Clintons managed to spin their way and bring under control, which is what they eventually did with Clinton's impeachment that was something Linda Tripp materially contributed to in a big way, (something Richard Nixon couldn't even get away with). There were dozens of players on the road and if you like, you can start cutting them out (it would look like a book with the main chapters chopped out by censors, and note that WP:NOTCENSORED), like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and many other women like this who in and of themselves are not worth much mention, but precisely because they got caught up in the trail of seductions, cover-ups and denials by Bill and Hillary Clinton, they willy nilly become an indelible and indeed required part of a major event and story because of the details that make up the significant political, social and historical over-all pivcture. It is therefore futile to rub them out just because WP has now come up with a side rule not even meant to wipe out important articles that are part of an even more important story. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No offense to Ed, but he does appear to be operating with a different view of the sources than most historians. Tripp attempted to bring down a sitting U.S. president, and that is highly notable, not a "relatively minor role" as Ed claims. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. You may as well be trying to use WP:BLP1E to delete John Wilkes Booth. Qworty (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep practically a household name. GabrielF (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability and this is a cardinal example of what BLP1E does *not* cover. Despite overwhelming consensus here, I still give even odds that a closing admin will disregard overwhelming consensus and decide that BLP1E is a prefect excuse to delete this article. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [2]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's next, trying to apply BLP1E for Chris Stevens? Go Phightins! 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument for redirecting on the basis on BLP1E is weaker than in the cases that inspired this AfD. Some of the information in the article is noteworthy but too tangential to Monica Lewinsky scandal to be included there (e.g. Trip's legal tussles) and the length of the article, which is reasonably lean, suggests that it is a legitimate WP:CFORK in any case. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP1E does not, by it terms, cause the wiki to avoid an article about a person who is central to an event like the impeachment of the President of the United States. Suggest we not do nominations that "seem weird." It is weird. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Viriditas. Clearly passes the 3rd test in WP:BLP1E. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavrilo Princip. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Tripp was a central figure in a series of events that came absurdly close to unseating an incumbent President of the United States. With this logic might as well AfD Monica Lewinsky too. Faustus37 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HD availability in Canada

[edit]
HD availability in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primarily an excessive directory of current company channel lineups, constantly changing channel guides, which fails WP:NOTDIR. Most of the lineups -- like BellTV, Shaw Direct, Vidéotron, Cogeco, and Rogers -- had individual pages and were already previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. An exhaustive directory with multiple current lineups is nearly impossible to maintain and is surely unencyclopedic. In addition to WP:NOTDIR, I would argue that this type of page also fails WP:IINFO for being an indiscriminate listing of numbers without any encyclopedic value and to some degree WP:NOR for hosting a "comparison" of companies for business purposes.

A list of Canadian HD channels can alternatively found at List of Canadian specialty channels#High definition, so deleting this page would in effect be re-deleting the channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we cut out the cable provider information, wouldn't this be a simple list of HD terrestrial broadcast channels in Canada? The "specialty channels" list linked to above excludes those. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator requests to withdraw this AFD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (redirected) (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasomia

[edit]
Sarasomia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I don't see how an article on a taxonomic genus comprised of one sentence clears the GNG bar. This page should be deleted and the sentence on the genus merged into the higher taxonomic classification. Jhortman (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't know into which article this article should be merged. The article for this genus' family, Veronicellidae, has this genus in a list, but none of the other genera in the family have any descriptions associated with them there. In fact, virtually all of the pages for the genera the Veronicellidae family are substantially similar to this article. Perhaps we need a wider-scope discussion on whether a taxonomic classification is inherently notable, because if it is not, most of those pages should be deleted, as well. I don't know what the proper venue for that discussion is, however.-Jhortman (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I've done a lot of searching, and there seems to be no clear policy or essay on the inherent notability (or lack thereof) on taxonomic classifications. The WP:GNG policy is the most general definition of notability, and a one-sentence article with a reference to a database cataloging its existence doesn't appear to me to meet that criteria. An analogy can be drawn from the astronomical guideline for notability, which states, "The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability." Basically, I think this falls into the Existence does not equal notability category. If there are not any verifiable, reliable references to support the notability of a classification, it can be listed on the main page of its parent classification until notability can be established. -Jhortman (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Hello folks, I am a founder member of Project Gastropods and a member of WikiProject Tree of Life; I started on Wikipedia in 2007 and have over 70,000 edits made by hand. I also believe that the question of whether individual species (or in this case individual genera) are actually notable has in fact been discussed and well established already, many years ago. I will talk to the admin who started our project in 2004, and maybe he can point you towards some of the relevant discussions on this question. Also honestly, I don't think it would be wise to start trying to deleting all the short stubs on biological taxa, as you will find that you have a riot on your hands from all the numerous projects involved! Taxonomy is the bedrock of biology, and Wikipedia contains many hundreds of thousands of short stubs about species and genera of organisms such as plants, insects, fungi, etc, etc, etc, etc, all across the board from bacteria and single-celled organisms all the way up to vertebrates. One simply cannot compare living genera to astronomical objects. The number of astronomical objects is infinite, whereas the number of living genera is very finite indeed, and man-made extinction is making that number less every day. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - This has been discussed over and over again in the past, and the general agreement was that all living things are notable through a de facto notability Wikipedia:Inherent notability. Anyway, I've added a few more items and one more reliable reference to the article. JoJan (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to make an observation: The family of leatherleaf slugs, Veronicellidae, includes the genera Sarasomia and Sarasinula. The only species of Sarasomia mentioned anywhere is Sarasomia plebeia, the Caribbean leatherleaf slug. Sarasinula plebeia, the bean leatherleaf slug, is found in the Caribbean. Sarasomia plebeia was described by P. Fischer in 1898; Sarasinula plebeia was described by the same in 1868. idtools.org writes that Sarasomia plebeia and Sarasinula plebeia are synonyms—as are the common names "Caribbean leatherleaf" and "bean leatherleaf"—so maybe a merge is in order, if the sources cited there support this or if idtools.org is a reliable source in its own right. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing our attention to this. We will attempt to sort this out. Invertzoo (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I am currently attempting to determine the proper use of the name. However, the Veronicellidae have not been much studied, so it may not necessarily be entirely clear which genus this species should be grouped under, assuming they are in fact two names used for the same species, which we cannot be absolutely sure of without careful searches of the literature. But in any case, if the other name appears to be more correct, then this page will be turned into a useful redirect page. It certainly should not be deleted. Invertzoo (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion of the Sarasomia/Sarasinula issue is tangential to the deletion discussion and should be held at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Are Sarasomia and Sarasinula synonymous?". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete I have to agree with an earlier comment that they are inherently notable, even if they are only one sentence for now. When it comes to science, I tend to err on the side of not delete. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion at Wikipedia_talk: WikiProject Gastropods #Are Sarasomia and Sarasinula synonymous? it has been agreed that Sarasomia and Sarasinula are in fact synonyms. I could easily make the redirect, but as I'm an administrator involved in this discussion, I'd rather leave this to someone uninvolved. JoJan (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the necessary redirects. However I have not touched the AFD tag, which is currently still up on the redirect page. There are two issues here.
1. The "not notable" objections to the genus article Sarasomia (which now appears to be an accidental but officially published synonym name), would they apply also to the genus article Sarasinula? If all genera of organisms are inherently notable, as seems to have been agreed upon in careful discussions numerous times before, then a one-sentence genus stub with a taxobox is acceptable, at least from the notability viewpoint.
2. The other issue is that a one-line stub with one reference may be too bare-bones minimal to please editors who espouse Immediatism. For those of us who espouse Eventualism such a short stub is acceptable, if less than ideal. I have advised the person who created the stub that he should try from now on to make sure that his stubs contain more content right from the start. He has agreed to do this.
I hope we can now come to agreement on closing this discussion. Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Sarasinula. I don't understand the subject well enough to offer a good argument for either side versus the other, but commonly-recognised genera (proof) are definitely notable and should never be converted into redlinks except in WP:TNT cases. Either it should be kept as a separate genus or redirected as an alternate name, but either way, someone's going to be looking for this topic, so we shouldn't say that we have no information on it. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Australia–Japan relations. MBisanz talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australians in Japan

[edit]
Australians in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Simple recitation of statistics without discussion of why this is notable. Jhortman (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, fails WP:GNG Richigi (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. I don't believe that it should be deleted. While it did just have some basic numbers, I have added some historical information regarding Australians in Japan during the occupation of Japan, plus links to notable individuals to add to the previous information, and plan to add more in the future. Also, a brief perusal of the other nationalities in Japan shows that there are 361 Jamaicans in Japan and this article is not under review. In terms of pure numbers, there are a similar amount of Georgians in Japan, and that article is not slated for deletion either. --Josephus37 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the other stuff exists argument is not sufficient to prove notability. Expanding the article to provide proof of notability is a great idea, if possible. You have a good point about Georgians in Japan and Jamaicans in Japan, which I have also listed for AfD. (I'm not deletionist on a mission here, btw. I simply came across this article while patrolling new pages and don't think that it meets the GNG criteria. In fact, I'm generally an inclusionist.) -Jhortman (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several books have been written about the Australian occupation forces in Japan, and there are a number of histories of Australian-Japan relations which cover this topic. As such, this is a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please list these sources. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of local Methodist churches

[edit]
List of local Methodist churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence or indication that the collection of notable local Methodist churches is in itself sufficiently notable as to warrant a list-article in Wikipedia. Furthermore the universe of local Methodist churches is sufficiently large (there are at least 400 churches in Category:Methodist churches) and the reasons for individual churches to be notable (these might include architecture of the church building, the church's significance to one of the several subdenominations of Methodism, and other aspects of the history of the church congregation, building or ministers) is sufficiently diverse that this is pretty much guaranteed to be an indiscriminate list. Orlady (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying, harassment, evil: I object to editor Orlady starting this AFD. Orlady has pursued a campaign of harassment and bullying for a number of years now, against me, but ceased for a while. This AFD and a few other recent edits indicate that the editor is has resumed following my edits again and started contending. There is no good purpose served by Orlady doing this, and plenty of reason that Orlady should not.
I assume since the article is short and new that there will be some other editors who will choose to discuss this, and perhaps may even chide me for taking note of the editor's long pattern of bullying. Well, the editor has several times expressed hatred against me, and has in fact followed a long pattern of truly uncivil, deeply uncivil editing. The purpose, implicitly is to drive me away from Wikipedia and/or to seek attention and/or to claim value to Wikipedia for contending against me. --doncram 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's a sourced, innocous, basic list of notable items. Of course there are a good number of notable Methodist churches, and among other things the architecture of Methodist churches reflects something about Methodists and the religion itself, and it will serve the world well actually to have a developed list-article about these. It complements Category:Methodist churches in the United States and Category:Methodist churches. See wp:CLT for an essay/guideline about the value of complementary list-articles, categories, and navigation templates. Editor Orlady has unnecessarily ridiculed, mocked, and contended against other list-articles with which I have been associated; e.g. List of round barns. No good purpose is served by opening a new dispute.--doncram 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example on the usefulness of having a list-article, it is clear immediately that some of the most historically significant Methodist churches have no wikipedia article; [[Heptonstall Methodist Church is covered only in a Heptonstall article and the St. John’s Methodist Church, Arbroath, one of the very first Methodist church buildings, built in 1772, is currently a redlink. Categories and navboxes obviously don't include these. The list-article provides place to list, identify significant ones that do need articles. --doncram 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few days ago I questioned the purpose of this list. I have been working to make the article "United Methodist Church" better in terms of content and form. This list is linked to that page, and this is probably the only way someone would ever end up finding it. The list lists two Methodist Churches, but there are over 33,000 in the United States alone, with thousands more outside the US. I believe that the list represents one persons attempt to make their favorite church(es) have a place on the wiki. Is this enough to keep this list? The United Methodist Church has countless churches, and the edit wars that continue on the main article page with people changing pictures to "their" church is endless. There are many churches that the denomination would consider notable (in fact it would consider all churches notable), but only a few that it lists as historically notable to the story of the denomination, like Lovely Lane Chapel, or John's Street Methodist Church, or Barratt's Chapel. The two listed are not among this more relevant list. I recommend that the article/list be deleted and that the following link be put on the page instead: http://archives.umc.org/Directory/ChurchDirectory.asp?ptid=1&mid=222 as this link will let the user find all UM churches rather than these two "randomly" selected churches. Just my thoughts......--Revmqo (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Revmqo seems to have accepted the validity of the list-article, signified by multiple contributions to the article by Revmqo. I think Revmqo was suspicious of the short, starter list with just 2 entries that I had started, working alphabetically starting in Alabama, and has noted the addition of Barratt's Chapel, etc., which i added in response to here. So I think only the deletion nominator supports deletion. --doncram 23:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer support deletion. I realize that everyone didn't agree with my initial comments, but the list had only two entries and did more to detract from the "United Methodist Church" article at that point, than to aid it. Now that we've whipped the page into shape, it is less one point of view.--Revmqo (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, your speedy-deletion nomination of the just-then-started list-article was properly rejected by another editor. In your nomination, I believe you suggested that the existing categories sufficed; you seemed unaware of wp:CLT. And, why contend with deletion nominations, rather than first discussing the merit and possible content of the list-article, at its Talk page? Anyhow, there is no interest by me in listing all 33,000 churches that you mention; this is by definition a list of notable ones, not a directory. It has since been developed somewhat to include some more notable ones. --doncram 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The page did not meet Wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion, which are intentionally very narrow (speedy deletion applies only in clear-cut cases). Different criteria apply here at WP:AFD. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Duh, I didn't say otherwise. I don't object to an editor who is unfamiliar with lists to having some concern when encountering a list in his/her area (apparently Methodism). I do object to an experienced editor who has great familiarity with lists, opening and continuing a frivolous AFD. However, let's please limit this AFD to discussing the merit of the AFD. Thank you. --doncram 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak Delete Possibly "keep" with a changed title, "List of notable local Methodist churches", some of which will also have their own article and others only an entry in the list. Also, the first couple sections would be appropriate in an article on Methodist church architecture. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi there. You also may not be very familiar with list-articles, I am guessing, I hope you don't mind my presuming. The word "notable" is implicit. It has been held in other discussions about list-articles that it is not necessary or helpful to include that word explicitly. Only notable ones are to be included. No one has questioned the inclusion of any one of 15 so-far-added items. Yes, about the suggestion towards a possible, potential split of article to have a separate one on Methodist church architecture (which would be naturally supported by having this main list-article). Thanks. --doncram 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, standard index list of notable topics that satisfies WP:LISTPURP, as a complement to the categories for the listed articles per WP:CLN. That there are many reasons why a local church might have achieved notability, that doesn't make the list indiscriminate any more than any other list of X for which not every instance of X is notable. That's actually a good reason for having the list in addition to categorizing: the list can annotate the entry's importance and also provide for alternate groupings and organizing methods. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm just slightly concerned over the usage of the term "local". Local to what, exactly? If you were to incorporate churches from all over the world that pass notability guidelines, at some point it'd cease being a list of local churches because England would not be considered local to the USA. I wouldn't even consider a church in California to be local to say, Nevada. It's such a vague yet specific term. Now if you intended the usage of the term "local" to mean "public", the list should be re-named List of public Methodist Churches to avoid confusion over the term "local". All of that aside, there is merit in having a list of Methodist churches that pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename List of public Methodist Churches. As I said above, the usage of the term "local" will be confusing to a lot of people and the meaning of it as a way of saying "public" is not universal in all countries. It would be far less confusing and more to the point to use the term "public" in this situation. If the list is to contain private churches that pass notability guidelines, the article would be good as List of Methodist Churches or something along those lines. I just don't like the usage of the term "local" since for most of the world's citizens "local" means "something that is local to me" and seeing a church in another country will be confusing. As far as the list goes, it's perfectly reasonable to have a list of notable Methodist churches, as it's not against the rules to have lists of notable architecture lumped together by function (churches, bridges, etc).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that argument is utter crap. So what if there exist some articles on individual churches that are not well developed. The list-article topic is wikipedia-notable. No one has questioned the notability of a single item out of 15 so far included. Your guess that the list-article could possibly descend into crap, is not a valid argument in any AFD. To others, editor Orlady is very familiar with issues of notability of items for list-articles, him- or herself maintaining one frivolous sounding list-article about bow tie wearers. And Orlady has long history of defence of an article List of Masonic buildings where similar concerns about potential amorphism of topic were claimed by inexperienced and/or narrowly focused Masonic editors, where Orlady was effective in countering that such claims were bunk. In context, O's suggestion here is hypocritical. --doncram 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a personal attack, to point out that an argument is utter crap. More specifically, your argument seems to fall under WP:LIKELYVIOLATION, recognized as an invalid AFD argument. Could you please respond to the point, i.e. make your best shot at an argument for deletion? You did not respond to the accusation that your argument is crap.
  • I do indeed believe this entire AFD is personally motivated, i.e. it is biased and personally directed and frivolous--I don't believe the nominator can be serious, actually. It seems incredible that this AFD was opened, and not yet withdrawn by the nominator. Why would Orlady not take aim at any other list of church articles and nominate one of them for AFD, rather than the one I happen to have just started, if as he/she indicates he/she has been focussing upon others, too? I do think that a long history of personal attacks and bullying is evidence of bias, and that bias is blinding this editor to come up with this AFD and with absurd arguments, which the editor knows are wrong. Why not seek to avoid the appearance of bias, personal attacks and bullying, by choosing something else to attack? Yes, please NPA and please avoid appearance of such. --doncram 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either be civil or don't post. It's that simple. --Nouniquenames 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offtrack, or perhaps suggesting concession by the deletion nominator that this AFD should never have been opened. Please keep AFD comments on the subject of deletion. --doncram 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First it was nominated in it's old form.... that is a list of 2 churches. Much has been done to improve the article since. Second, the term "local" is an entirely appropriate and source-able term when referring to a church within Methodist denominations. --Revmqo (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what aspect, though? If it's a term used in a way other than "this is local to myself personally" in how the term "local" is used 99% of the time, it needs to be sourced and elaborated on in the article to explain how the term differs from the typical usage of the term local. Most of the times I've seen the term used, it's used in reference to something that was local to another topic, such as the church being local to the town of Town-ville or that John Smith went to his local church.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you accept that there can be more than one meaning to the word "local"? You seem to be wrapped around one definition, but there are in fact more definitions of the word. At this point the word is only used in the title. The appropriate reference would be ¶201 of "The United Methodist Book of Discipline, 2008". Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2008. I am not sure how to put a reference in the title of a page. My earlier comment was only to show that it is an appropriate use. If you want to move the page to one with a new title, go ahead as far as I am concerned, but the word is used appropriately.--Revmqo (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is offtrack from the AFD, which should be closed. Could you two please move your discussion of a possible rename to Talk:List of local Methodist churches. I will copy (update: did copy) your discussion to there. --17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussions of article naming frequently occur as part of WP:AFD discussions -- as article names sometimes affect perceptions of article notability. I see no particular reason to complicate matters by splitting off a separate discussion in another location. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As if to defend the merit of this frivolous AFD? Well, Revmqo and I have both posted other comments in the discussion about use of word "local" or not, at the appropriate place for discussion of such, at Talk:List of local Methodist churches, and discussion is continuing there. --doncram 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and if we get this list anywhere close to being comprehensive, it will be a perfect example of a directory. Lists of churches can be appropriate, but only on a smaller scale: something like List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove, which has a clear geographical boundary, or List of Strict Baptist churches, which discusses a comparatively small group with relatively few churches. Given the number of Methodist churches and their distribution throughout the world, this is way way too broad. This is why we have the subcategories of Category:Methodist churches — the category is mostly impervious to nonnotable churches, and it prevents users from thinking that we're trying to present a comprehensive list of all Methodist churches. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it make sense to create and maintain a list-article that lists a few arbitrarily selected individual Methodist churches (there were two listed when I started this AfD; now there are 15 on the list), when we already know that the universe of listable items is very large -- because Wikipedia's Methodist churches categories contains articles about several hundred Methodist churches? (It's hard to determine the total number of articles, since some appear in more than one subcategory of Category:Methodist churches. There are 405 churches in the Methodist church buildings-by-century categories, and I know that many church articles aren't in those categories. In geographic categories, there are 37 churches in the UK, 46 in Kentucky, 93 in New York state, 44 in Ohio, 47 in Tennessee, and more in other U.S. states.) How is the scope of this list article being defined, if it can't include all the Methodist churches that have articles? --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the list is all Methodist churches that have articles. The list can be broken up as needed. This article isn't even two weeks old yet, so the fact that it currently only contains 15 isn't important. A lack of current completeness is not an argument for deletion (see WP:NOTCLEANUP) Ryan Vesey 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why set out to create a list that is clearly inherently unmaintainable? As it currently exists, the elements on this list appear to be an arbitrary sample of somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent of the universe of Methodist churches that have articles. There are plenty of ways that sublists could be defined, such as a list of churches significant in the history of Methodism, lists by geography or denomination, and lists of Methodist church buildings by architectural style. When the size of the potential list is already clearly indicated by the size of an existing category for the list topic, why set out to create an omnibus list that is obviously going to have too broad a scope to be maintainable? --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2004-2005, Wikipedia had a single master list of titles of articles about National Register properties, but that list was broken up 7 years ago (in December 2005), when the number of list entries appears to have been similar to the number of Methodist churches that have articles now. When the list of National Register properties was first initiated in May 2004, it may not have been obvious that there were going to be more individual articles than could be listed in one place, but it should not be necessary to repeat that mistake now with the list of Methodist churches. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveats. (1) The recent name change was an improvement and needs to be kept. (2) The first sentence of the lede needs to include the word 'architecture' (see Body_of_Christ#The_Church for alternative meanings of the word 'church' in this context). (3) The lede needs to include an inclusion criteria, something like 'buildings built as or primarily used as places of congregation and/or worship by Methodist groups' (see Central Hall for Methodist buildings which are not referred to as churches). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level Renner

[edit]
Level Renner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A running (athletics) magazine found during NPP which I tried unsuccessfully to source. Basically, little to zero third-party references or coverage to be found. It's fairly easy to establish notability for a publication (e.g. Backpacking Light Magazine), but this one doesn't seem to pass muster. Also, it seems to be self published. The one reference I did find at first glance seemed valid but later I realized by its tone and "guest author" that it was probably written by the same person who created the article. COI and quality issues aside, I think this fails WP:GNG and the guidelines at WP:NMAGAZINE. §FreeRangeFrog 19:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you've tried and failed to get good sources, there's not much chance that someone else will, and publications started in 2011 are very unlikely to be covered only in dead-tree sources. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Sowell

[edit]
Andrew Jackson Sowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not really notable, per the GNG. He was a soldier in several wars but did not distinguish himself in any significant way. I've read dozens of books on the Alamo (claim to fame 1), and he is not mentioned in most and mentioned in passing in a handful. His other claim to fame is his Ranger and war service after the Texas Revolution, and documentation for that comes solely from books written by his son. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references provide significant coverage. Three of the listed references mention him in passing along the lines of "he was outside the Alamo walls doing blah blah when Santa Anna arrived and he couldn't get back in". So no, he did not survive the battle itself - he wasn't there for the siege. One book was written by his son. Findagrave and sons of dewitte are not reliable sources. Moore (2006), p. 193 is simply a muster list that has Sowell's name on it. One of the Moore books pretty much just says Sowell's son wrote about the exploits of his father in the Texas Rangers. It's trivial information. He's not considered significant by Alamo scholars and not by Texas Ranger scholars either. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maybe there are sourcing issues - maybe not. And maybe we could allow DLS Texas time to strengthen the article and sort out the sourcing. I don't see any discussion on the article's Talk page abut this. I found A Guide to the Andrew Jackson Sowell Family Papers, circa 1880-circa 1954, but it's not the same individual. This is the nephew. Still, there's so much utter and total c**p out there on Texas articles, but DLS Texas is one editor out there who is really trying to do articles correctly. I think maybe we can give this author a second chance to make improvements and show us why this individual is notable. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) For the reasons given by Maile above; 2) I knew the name and the story of his part concerning the Alamo. 3) That is a substantial Texas military career-- of which I was unaware. 4) While all Texans participating in the Revolution are equally notable, some are more equal than others-- or something like that. 5) It is a new article. Let's see where it goes-- not just what DLS might do with it, but what other researchers may be able to add over time. That is, I have seen several start-class articles which missed the big stuff initially-- supplied by others once the article was found to exist. --cregil (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Additional thoughts. I'm enough of a Texas history fanatic to want everything about the Alamo to be correct as possible. Karanacs has been one of the most extraordinary contributors to Wikipedia in its life span. Bar none - Karanacs is an incredible editor and Texas historian. That said, who got documented in history before the mass media era, was sometimes who had the right friends in the right places, the correct relatives and friends to make sure their contribution was not lost. 254 counties were named after pioneers that not even scholars can always effectively find information on. Sowell was a participant in the revolution. Accomplishments? IMO, seems like saying qualifications for burial in a military cemetery should be based on a check list of accomplishments. Findagrave might not be considered reliable, but that photo of the tombstone erected by the Texas Historical Commission certainly testifies to his notability. Wording on the tombstone lists him as a "courier from the Alamo":.THC Tombstone marker The Project Texas Clean Up List gives one an idea of the over 8,000 Texas project articles that have serious questions. By comparison, Andrew Jackson Sowell doesn't look so bad. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree that anyone who fought in the Texas Revolution is notable in terms of getting a Wikipedia article. I've done some extensive searching in my sources and can't find more information on [b]this[/b] Andrew Jackson Sowell. Most of what is available was written by his son, the Andrew Jackson Sowell who would definitely meet the WP Notability criteria. I don't mean to disparage DLS - he's done excellent work on a lot of articles, I just think this particular man doesn't meet the criteria - the sources do not cover him in any significant way. Some mention him in one or two lines (he was fortunate to be out of the Alamo when Santa Anna arrived). The rest of the sourcing is along the lines of "his son said the father was in the Texas Rangers" and "here's a roster for this particular military company; his name is on it." Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort notes

[edit]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Bones

[edit]
Frankie Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few sources, article is comprised of a lede and a lengthy discography. The 3-4 sources provided don't look particularly reliable either, and while they might be okay as sources for bits and pieces of a BLP, I don't think a BLP can be based entirely on them. Article was tagged for WP:PROD, but challenged, though no significant referenced additions were made. Jonathanfu (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Bones is also featured in the feature length Documentary "Better Living Through Circuitry" -- this entry needs to be kept and improved. There is a cover story in Mixer Magazine - which was global publicantion a couple of years back, that would be good for sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.40.138 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maloney

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mike Maloney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account however it has been speedy deleted 3 times previously and this is just a continuation of a multi-year history of "Mike Maloney" promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Mike_Maloney_promotion. I've searched for sources and have attempted to clean this up, but nothing notable comes up. Has links but they seem to be press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from primary and non reliable secondary sources. Seems to be nothing more than a vanity article for Self-promotion and push a non-notable book. Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Much of this page has been deleted prior to it's nomination. I believe the sweeping deletions were overly aggressive and leaves a page that is incomplete and therefore appears to not be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Dorado Adventurer (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - non-notable goldbug, wrote a non-notable book, has non-notable businesses and website(s), speaks at goldbug conferences; fails our standards as notable author, investor, or internet figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I find these derogatory comments deeply concerning. It appears that User:Organgemike is offended by what he calls a "goldbug" and everything about the industry. This kind of censorship is exactly what wikipedia endeavors to overcome. When considering whether to keep or delete, please try to refrain from derogatory language.El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my use of the jocular term "goldbug" offended you, Adventurer: most of the hard-money fans I know like the term, and it's used in publications like Barron's all the time. As to the rest: I don't have to tell you that there are a lot of shills, promoters and egotrippers in this segment of the financial trade; and the history of this article seems to indicate that Maloney is among them. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. This helps me understand the perspective being taken which I hope to translate into better edits in general. I appreciate the clarification El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real independent sources. The first ref is to an article at the "International Business Times" which is solely a cut&paste from the publisher's page; no other content is presented. Second source is subject's site. Third source is pretty random, but does not seem to support the "one of five permanent exhibits" claim; our own material claims "permanent collection of over 4.5 million objects". The fourth reference is to a vanity press, self-published book. Need better sources for a COI article on a non-notable or marginally notable author. Kuru (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the responses and criticisms of this entry, would it be possible to allow more time to make appropriate edits? I do believe that this entry deserves to exist but would benefit from more attentive editing rather than deletion. Thoughts? El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will last a minimum of seven days; more than enough time to find existing sources that meet our guidelines. If you need time after that, I'm sure a copy of the article can be moved into a "sandbox" in your userspace and you can work on it there. I'm afraid that I was unable to locate anything that was reliable; mostly just cross-selling in other "get rich" books and a ton of SEO. The author's name is surprisingly common, though, so I may have missed some things as I tightened searches. Kuru (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choom gang

[edit]
Choom gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely undue weight to make an article about an informal group of Barack Obama's pot-smoking college buddies. The "news" in this case is the pot-smoking itself, which is already mentioned in the main Barack Obama article; the "gang" in itself is not notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia community believes that this article should be deleted, then I respect that. But let me first make some points against deletion:

  • This group has been written about as the main subject of multiple articles in credible media sources.
  • A Google search for "Choom Gang" yields many results, but no comprehensive, encyclopedia-like overview of the group.
  • The Barack Obama Wikipedia article (with the reference to the group) does not appear on the first page of Google's results in a search for "Choom Gang".
  • I made an effort to keep this article neutral. If others see it as biased, please edit it rather than deleting it.

I decided to create this article because I saw a reference to the group and didn't know what it was. So I Googled it and was surprised that there was lots of media coverage, but not a Wikipedia page. So I created one. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara

[edit]
Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:GNG. Problem is, this tag team has not done really anything to really be notified by anyone other than WWE. This article has no reliable sources either and I don't see any major ones. They haven't even won a tag team title or have been together that long. I suggest deleting this article. Srsrox (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think a mention in each of Místico (Sin Cara) and Rey Mysterio with links between the two would be appropriate and should suffice. I can't see any reason why this particular partnership (which doesn't seem to be specifically verified by reliable sources) is notable in its own right. By all means, if the pair go on to "make beautiful (smack down) music together" then I would have no problem with an article being recreated. Stalwart111 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "They haven't been together long enough," "They haven't done anything," "They haven't won any titles," etc., are not valid reasons for deletion. I don't know why people persist with these rationales. I do agree, however, that the complete lack of sources is a valid reason for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I mentioned notability and lack of sources as the reasons of why it should be deleted, not what you quoted. Those are simply additional arguments I'm adding to my already-valid points that Wikipedia accepts. Srsrox (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian-born footballers who have played for another national team

[edit]
List of Brazilian-born footballers who have played for another national team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and trivial; consensus against this sort of list can be found here. GiantSnowman 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice the title of the Scottish article when editing with AWB - please remove your accusations of bias as entirely uncivil and unfounded. If consensus exists at this AfD then I will nominate the Scottish one as well. GiantSnowman 08:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I didn't notice it, not that I didn't read it - at the time it didn't click that it could possibly be non-notable. It took me 5 days from editing this article to clocking that it could be non-notable. That's a difference. But hey, how can we build an encyclopedia with editors like you refusing to AGF? GiantSnowman 09:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salford Gaslight Murders

[edit]
Salford Gaslight Murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches turn up no indication these muders actually happened, and the events in the article are almost exactly the same as those in John George Haigh--murderer trying to destroy bodies, attempting to obtain money from murders, and most obviously, much of the text in the "trial and execution" section is identical to that in the same section of the Haigh article; it seems apparent this was simply copied and pasted. C628 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Searches get only Wikipedia mirrors. The article is largely copied and pasted from John George Haigh as the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - certainly appears to be a hoax. The fact remains that even if it were not, we would still need reliable sources to verify the claims in the article. Given we have zero sources, verification seems unlikely. Stalwart111 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it as a hoax, but in case it doesn't get speedied I want to show my support for this to be deleted. No sources to show notability, none come up in a search, and the article has been copied from another one. I'd suggest a blocking, but the editor hasn't been active since February.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Origins of Monstrosity

[edit]
The Origins of Monstrosity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed Prod, no apparent claim to notability as an episode Nouniquenames 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nominator --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To American Horror Story. While I agree with the nominator that this is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article (at least yet), it seems it's a plausible search term. Unfortunately this is a losing battle because most serial TV programs have expanded to create article after article about their episodes, regardless of whether they meet the standalone notability guidelines. A list of episodes by season with a very short plot synopsis is more than enough in almost all cases. There are exceptions of course, but this is not one of them. §FreeRangeFrog 22:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please allow the article. I agree it is a plausible search term as I myself came here tonight looking for it. I use wikipedia to look for plot summaries on television episodes and movies. I did so tonight for this episode. An article about an episode may contains information from ratings to actors to plot. As for reasons to keep it, it would aid those who are looking for this title in finding this versus an unrelated item. It would aid those who are searching for information about this episode. The article would aid anyone who finds it useful. There is too much information about each episode to put it on the main page of the series, as this series is very complex. See WP:RFD#KEEP Missyagogo (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the major issue seems rectified, and deletion no longer seems particularly necessary. --Nouniquenames 05:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I'm unconvinced we need articles on individual episodes, we have them for many series, usually limited to hour long dramas or other non-sitcom shows. Seinfeld is a notable exception to this rule (we have an article for almost every one). As far as I can tell, despite a lot of effort, there's no single guideline on television episodes. This article, as it is now, is up to quality standards for most shows, and while I'm not certain references justify standalone notability, I'm quite willing to keep this one for consistency. Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - J-B (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Enterprise Switch Manager

[edit]
Avaya Enterprise Switch Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod, questionable notability, written like an advertisement Nouniquenames 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt any new article starting with "Avaya". Note:
There are a couple more that were kept but I can't help but strongly suspect that someone isn't getting the message that WP is not for WP:PROMO. Given the history, I think an administrator should have to be convinced before another of these articles can be created. It's a massive waste of editor time. Stalwart111 03:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify FRF, all of the above in the list I provided have been deleted. I listed them as an indication of the amount of time the WP community has spent reviewing and deleting obvious promo-spam. By my count, there are 4 existing Avaya-related articles currently at AFD. Stalwart111 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, your objection and your "vote" but it's worth pointing out that those above and the four others discussed have not be mass-or-group-nominated, nor are they being dealt with as a group. My point was that there had been a large number to date and that something should be done to place tighter controls on new ones. But existing ones must still be dealt with on their merits - they must go through WP:AFD and be subject to WP:CONSENSUS. If they are notable then they should stay. Stalwart111 13:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Stalwart111, I am truly glad to find out that you are interested in finding out more. Not so sure about other participants some of whose contribution history clearly demonsrrates that they have spent less than two minutes looking at the evidence and entering a Delete-vote, which is disheartening to me since I spent countless hours trying to explain why a Keep-vote makes more sense.
Anyway, I have just posted an long explanation of why I object to the wholesale removal of these articles. I hope editors get a chance to read it before casting more Delete-votes. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left some comments there, though I fear they do not really change anything with regard to this article or the history of the others I listed above. But it's worth taking into account that some of the more recent contributions in this field seem substantially more "good faith" than has historically been the case. Stalwart111 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, objecting without giving a reason does not assist in AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PRODUCT. The community has established a relatively high bar for articles about products, and this one clearly misses. There may be enough information about this particular product to rate a sentence in the Avaya article, but not enough coverage is warranted to make a merge worthwhile. This relatively simple product name is a plausible search term and should be redirected to Avaya after deletion. Incidentally, these articles have (so far at least) been judged individually, so "wholesale deletion" is not an accurate term. However, bundling of deletions is absolutely permitted by process and would not, in itself, be a strong keep argument. VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
** @VQuakr, several questions/points if I may:
1. In regards to bundling, I myself, and I am sure other Keepers (where are they btw), would have preferred to have all these articles proposed for deletion in one well-advertised chunk, instead of spread over different dates and different deletion methods. Actually I believe the two nominators involved felt that this was the only way of getting around a bunch of colluding of wiki-spammers-promoters who use every trick in the book to defeat their justified deletion efforts. So yes, I still believe that these are wholesale deletions carried out by only two nominators, User:Alan Liefting (who is currently unable to participate here until Nov 28 - so in fairness the closings should be held up IMHO) and user: Nouniquenames, both of whom have been instrumerntal in the deletion of wp:WikiProject Nortel which housed, before it was deleted, all articles related to Nortel). Between them those two editors have nominated at least 15 Nortel related articles for deletion, some (if not all) of them more than once. Both nominators have openly stated that they believe the editors involved in the creation of these articles are promoters, spammers, sock-puppets, SPAs or meatpuppets (whatever those derogatory names mean). They have openly stated their belief that these articles are promotional only – and this is the basis on which these nominations have been presented.
Procedurally, the availability of an individual to participate in an AfD or other discussion is not usually considered in the duration such a discussion is held open. A deletion discussion is the wrong forum for addressing the rest of your concerns, since we should be looking at the content and the subject matter. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was so instrumental that I !voted. The same could be said of four other participants, not counting the nominator. I choose not to bundle so that individual articles can be scrutinized and nothing worth keeping is deleted simply because it is overlooked. --Nouniquenames 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. In your Delete-vote you state quite a different rationale for deletion that no one else in this discussion has articulated before. I believe the closing admin should allow more time for the all the Keepers( did I already ask where they all are?) to find a rebuttal to this brand new rationale.
AfD's are consensus-based, not a debate or a vote. The core of my reasoning is notability-based, which was mentioned in the AfD nomination. Even if it were not mentioned, I am aware of no precedent for your request for time to prepare a response. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. This article started it’s life under a compleletely different name (Enterprise Switch Manager See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avaya_Enterprise_Switch_Manager&oldid=185132936) which according to its 2008 version is a Nortel protocol, not an Avaya product. Yes the history of the article is very confusing, but it illustrates very clearly a point I have been attempting to make almost since the day I joined Wikipedia: Articles should not be moved to a new company name simply because a company is taken over by a different company.
For reference, this is the diff link to the move. I do not understand how this is relevant to whether the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. wp:product says this: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article" yet you are voting Delete not Merge?
Yes, I explained why in my !vote above. In short, it will be less work to write a sentence about the product in Avaya than to merge the articles and then clean up the overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. You say that this article clearly misses the bar for articles about products, but I cannot see why you think that. This is what I read under wp:product: "If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article" Ottawahitech (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to #4. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or look at the rest of the line you partially quoted: If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion. --Nouniquenames 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The management software that this AfD is about is not itself notable, coverage is limited to reference and tutorial books. I have no evaluated the other related AfDs, so this comment is only for this particular article. Gigs (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There has been a number of editors creating Avaya related articles creating leading to a situation where the company is given undue prominence in Wikipedia. IMHO, this is a case where WP:OTHERSTUFF is a valid deletion argument - ther is no otherstuff about such a wide range of products from equivalent companies giving Avaya an undue commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alan_Liefting, so why not simply revert all changes, including the wiki-move from Nortel to Avaya, that took place after Nortel went belly up in all the articles that have been separately proposed for deletion, instead of deleting all this historic stuff from Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Communication Servers

[edit]
Avaya Communication Servers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod of an apparently non-notable product. Nouniquenames 15:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

Avaya Proactive Voice Quality Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rumbling Hearts episodes

[edit]
List of Rumbling Hearts episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIR. Simple mention in the mother article should do, methinks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC*)

  • Comment:Wouldn't notability be an issue for the parent article? If the show is notable, isn't notability of the content implied? Are you asking for third part sources that say "this show is made up of a series of episodes"? Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a merge would not work and am asking for third party sources for the episodes, right now the only thing sourced is: "The OVA, produced by the Japanese animation studio Brain's Base and distributed by Bandai Visual was released between December 21, 2007 and December 19, 2008" Sorry to confuse im also making a proposal for when it comes to notability for anime series episodes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of episodes lists are customary for shows, and the original article's apparently to long for a comfortable merge. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated multiple times above, a companion "List of X episodes" is very much common practice for television shows, especially in the case of anime where the source material is in -- and the main article is about -- a different media format (the main Kimi ga Nozomu Eien article is about the visual novel). This arrangement helps move television-only details like studios and broadcast dates out of the main article. Would it help if there were summaries for all the episodes? I've seen the series twice and have it on DVD and would be happy to add them, though I suppose they'd be deleted right away as "original research". --Invalidname (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Khawam

[edit]
Natalie Khawam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. A relatively unknown socialite who happened to be the twin sister of someone who got more involved in the Petraeus scandal. Khawam has done nothing of note herself and coverage is all centered around this one event (the scandal). She has been friends with notable people. Her sister, Jill Kelley, is much higher profile (meaning that her name is a punchline) but her BLP was recently deleted as BLP1E [14], which doesn't give this one much hope. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Niteshift: Please withdraw your nomination and let's:

  • Keep the article because: (1) You should have made yourself very clear then and not dragged other stuff in to befuddle your point. Every article stands on its own merits and Natalie Khawam deserves her own WP article at this point because she is WP:N with all the WP:RS and WP:V coming out by the thousands in the reliable media every day at the present time. (2) Kindly note, that WP:NOTPAPER we have room for this and much more. (3) In any case, this is clearly not a case of a flash-in-the-pan BLP1E because there is just too much media and verifiable sources being churned out. (4) This person Natalie Khawam only came to light after the resignation of David Petraeus on November 9th, 2012, barely 12 days ago (her name came out a few days later, so we maybe know her for 7 days, and on that basis you feel confident enough to delete?), but how can you or anyone make a judgment of her notability in the context of the scandal when the scandal itself has only been public knowledge for about 12 days only and how can anyone rush to delete and exclude the main players in this serious event. (5) Natalie Khawam had deep enough personal relationships with both Geberals David Petraeus and John R. Allen that they went to bat for her in court. (6) She has lobbied and been in the White House at least three times. (7) She has had serious relationships with political fundraisers and politicians such as US Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio and many others. (8) She is an attorney and was married to and very involved in the work of her former husband Grayson Wolfe, an important person in the former George W. Bush administration. (9) Natalie Khawam lives with her sister Jill Kelley and they have hosted and participate in important political events together. (10) How any one can jump to conclusions and want to zap a growing article about her as she is obviously a key player in the Petraeus scandal as it unfolds is just incredible, unless someone is trying to be an apologist or something for them and wants to stop WP from doing what it does best, grow as an encyclopedia that deals with verifiable and notable facts and personalities, even if we come to know publicly about them 12 days ago. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1) I was clear, you just read what you wanted to read.
#2) WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply here. That's not the issue. What IS the issue is WP:N and WP:BLP1E
#3) Apparently you struggle with what BLP1E means. The sheer volume of coverage is not the issue. The issue is that she is a non-notable person, caught in a notable event, a single notable event.
#4) While you complain about a rush to judgement, you ignore your rush to publish. Don't publish until they pass notability.
#5) A relationship with notable people, no matter how deep and personal (no matter how much you overstates it), is not grounds for notability. Notability is not inherited.
#6) Lobbying and visiting the White House? You really want to use that as an indicator of notability? SMH.
#7) Again, relationships with notable people don't make you notable. Have you even read the policies?
#8) Being an attorney doesn't make you notable, nor does marrying one. Once again you submit "evidence" that is contrary to Wikipedia policy.
#9) Hosting and attending parties? Really? That's even weaker than 6.
#10) See 4. If you're going to repeat your arguments, I'll repeat my answers. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what Niteshift this reminds of how much WP can slip out of reality and trump itself, and why there is also a thing out there called WP:IGNORE and we need to use our brains, when policies trump facts when its policies are misapplied. Major events unfold, often at lightening speed in today's media world of instant online information, and here we have a major political (sex) scandal in which heads are rolling, careers come crashing down that -- without in-depth informative and well-researched articles about the twins Jill Kelley and Natalie Khawam -- would make it seem that David Petraeus lost his head and lost his reputation because he may as well have met a lady walking a dog in a park (truly not notable, or she may even have once been notable) and because of that all came crashing down. How is anyone supposed to understand, let alone write, encyclopedic articles involving a set of key players, when all one is allowed to do is talk about a guy who is famous for 37 years but not about some females who have brought him down. These were not just street corner anonymous women, but as the articles and media resources show they are very complicated and powerful players in their own right. So to mention this and that silly detail about them, is like saying "they wear short skirts" or "no skirts at all" but it does not help to describe and explain to the public coming to WP to read and learn and understand what the heck is going on, if important supporting articles are just chucked based on some ethereal WP policy that stands in the way of WP itself functioning as an encyclopedia not just about the old past but about current events as they happen and they they unfold. IZAK (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am using my brain, which is why this turd non-notable article is nominated. As for the rest of your response, apparently you fail to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift: You miss the point, I have no desire to be a newspaper or "reporter" and never have been. The point is to describe and explain what happened in the complex Petraeus scandal in which Natalie Khawam and her sister Jill Kelley are undeniably key players. That is the point that needs to be researched and deserves its place in an encyclopedia that is dealing with this subject as it unfolds. Neither you nor anyone on WP can cherry pick and decide who they like and don't like fitting into this saga. It is happening outside of WP whether we like it or not. The only thing WP can do as an encyclopedia is to describe and explain what is going on, and for WP itself newspapers are to be used as WP:RS. WP does not only consult dusty old books, research papers or other defunct encyclopedias, because WP is a living developing body of online work that takes in all verifiable and reliable and accurate truthful information be it from newspapers or anywhere else, I am not creating "news" I am citing when need be as required by WP policies, and that has been done in this case in big doses in spite of all the deprecations to the contrary. IZAK (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say you don't view Wikipedia as a newspaper, yet you said "the public coming to WP to read and learn and understand what the heck is going on". That sounds very present-tense, newspaper like to me. Regardless, you are confusing WP:V with WP:N. Just because we know something and a news outlet covered it, doesn't make it notable in and of itself. If Justin Bieber buys a new hat today, 100 news outlets will cover it. That won't make the event notable. The event is notable, everyone involved is not, especially not the lesser involved sister. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niteshift. The analogy with Justin Bieber's hat is bad because here it's about an affair that was uncovered that stems from the email of Jill Kelley, that (a) led to the unmasking of Paula Broadwell and brought down the head of the CIA (Petraeus) and (b) Kelley's voluminous email also damaged the career of another general, John R. Allen beyond repair. This chain of events came from Kelley, was ignited by her, she is the trigger, it's not like Bieber buying a hat or dumping a girlfriend, Kelley's actions by getting the FBI involved behavior and history brought down the CIA chief and ruined General Allen, and her sister Natalie Khawam is directly linked to her, and in turn is linked to the two generals Petraeus and Allen. The two sisters are twins and deserve two articles because there is more than enough material to fill two separate articles about them. There cannot be "events" without people, and in this case the people, by dint of the depth of their involvement, there are these two sisters, no matter how unappetizing it is what is being reported, like the stain of semen that Clinton left on Monica Lewinsky's dress (a better analogy than proverbial Bieber's hat) that resulted from oral sex it is important forensic evidence that Clinton could not deny the affair and that got him impeached even though Monica was just a lowly intern and got famous by working in the White House and not by doing anything else than wearing thongs or nothing under her dresses, that's not just about newspapers reporting what happened, but all the US intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and courts have dealt with and are dealing with. The papers merely report this, they do not "create" this and neither do we. Current events do not have to be about major people only to be worthy of articles on WP, there are many lesser degrees of people who interact with the higher ups that are important too in the greater scheme of things, and it is a pity that WP policies will be misused to stop the full development of encyclopedia articles about all the major players involved in the scandal. IZAK (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, clearly you are convinced you're right and I can assure you that your repeating yourself won't result in me withdrawing the nomination, so continuing this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Indenting complicated due to outdent: This is a response to IZAK's 16:58 comment) Hi there. Under Izak's criteria, I demand my own Wikipedia article. I've met all sorts of important people. And yeah, I know, maybe there's not so much you could write about me right now, but I'm only 16. Won't you regret it if you don't make an article on me now, and realize later that you should have? I mean, it's not like we have any way to restore previous versions of articles when their subjects finally meet the notability criteria, so if we don't get a head start now, we'll never catch up. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 17:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? At least User:Niteshift responds to my points while you make no sense with your feeble attempt at comedy when we are in the middle of serious discussion. Obviously, unlike the ones who want to chop out this article, BOTH Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen as well as BOTH Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio think and act like Natalie Khawam is a VIP, they are not waiting for WP to tell them who is important in their social political, and sex lives. Plenty of media about this. This lady has clout, don't make fun of her. IZAK (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and has different standards for who we have articles about. There have been lots of breathless and prurient tabloidish articles about the breaking news story. That is not the stuff a good encyclopedia is made of. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. If she and her sister in the future become as frequently on the covers of supermarket tabloids as the Kardashians, then we can reconsider. Edison (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom that this is a classic BLP1E case and a pseudo biography. If in 6 months time, articles about here are still being published she may be truly notable, but it is too soon to decide this at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom and Smartse and Edison, that this is a classic BLP1E case and a pseudo biography and EN Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and has different standards for who we have biographies/life stories about. - Youreallycan 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per nominator, BLP1E through and through, no independent referencing. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My god, this is a classic BLP1E and NOTNEWS. "reportedly also friends with.." what? Seriously? IZAK's defense of this puff piece is all the more troubling, considering he is an established editor who should know better. §FreeRangeFrog 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, and because I am a serious editor I have a broader more in-depth view of the total picture in this historical event. Everything here is substantiated by WP:RS in the article. Too bad that people are focusing on a minor WP policy, that does not even apply here in any sense since it's designed to keep out genuinely tangential people, instead of what is really happening in the world. Reality trumps WP as far as I am concerned. IZAK (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you have a broader view? Self-important much? I'm hardly a new or inexperienced editor my friend, nor are many of those who've already come here and agreed that this article should be deleted. Your answer is very telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know Niteshift, no one is obligated to go along with group think on WP. The previous user stated that I am "an established editor" and I affirmed that with my own statements. You know, we can always find a closing admin who will not interpret the will of most users' votes here, and make this a Keep, based on the way the 28 users who voted to Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley were over-ridden and the guy Deleted it on his own and to heck with what 28 Keeps voted. Would you object if suddenly an admin came along and kept this article in spite of all the Delete votes? WP has become such a topsy-turvy world with editors caught up in an artificial world of WP policies that they have no time to perceive and write about what's happening in the real world. One wonders why users are asked to express their views, and to write articles, if at the end of the day admins or policy wonks will do what they want and either delete or keep based on reasons that have nothing to do with AfD discussions and votes. And WP wonders why it cannot get the same numbers of people writing articles and maintaining them. I think it's pretty obvious why, when the entire job of writing, sourcing and defending articles is shot down on a whim. It's only since November 9th that this story came out, that's exactly 13 days ago, yet you are so sure that this is not notable. Amazing. Let me ask you by the way, if this article gets deleted because some think it's "tabloid" then should all mention of Natalie Khawam be chopped out of all other articles even though she and her sister Jill Kelley are joined at the hip in more ways than one? Even if it was the stuff of tabloids (and it's much more than that), WP has room for that AFAIK. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, you only hear what you want to hear, regardless of what is actually said. I never said you have to engage in any "group think". What I took issue with is your assertion that you somehow have a broader view that makes you think this should be kept. For that to be true, that means all those who disagree with you have a narrow view and that, my friend, is an arrogant assertion. What you appear to have not considered at all is that you are simply wrong. But this AfD might cure that. As for the rest of your bitching and moaning rambling spiel about a different AfD.....well, you can pack all that up and take it to the DRV. It has no place here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just can't see how the subject gets past WP:BLP1E. Sure, there are plenty of sources but they are all based on the same single event or they were prompted by the same single event. Even those sources that provide a "retrospective" profile of the subject obviously wouldn't have done so had the single event not happened. They have been written because readers are notionally interested in the people involved in a particular event - "here's some background on this person involved with this event". That, to me, is the very definition of "1E". Stalwart111 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Incidental figure in an ongoing scandal. Jill Kelley is arguably notable. Khawam is not. I'm not even sure this level of coverage meets WP:BIO, before anyone makes any claims about BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destroy with Fire per nom, Edison, YRC, etc. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This review is a waste of time There was a clear 2 to 1 consensus (or more) in favour of keeping the article for this subject's far more notable sister yet that article was deleted anyway. Closing admins are evidently not bound to respecting the community consensus, meaning that if you are not an admin, please spend your time elsewhere. Nothing you could say here is going to keep this article from being deleted.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, Brian, what are you ranting about? This is the AfD for Natalie. This is not a review. If you want to opine on the matter of Jill kelly, then go there. Thus far, This AfD has a very clear consesus that e subject isn't notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a "discussion" then if "review" is reserved for more formal usage. I see AfDs as "reviews" of the nominator's call to delete. This is very clearly related to Jill Kelley in that if the Kelley article is deleted then this one is WP:SNOWBALL. I'll quote from that policy to make my point here explicit: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow may very well fall here, but not because of the DRV or the Jill Kelly article. This article is getting delete !votes because she is a non-notable person who hangs around notable people. Totally and completely divorced of the Kelly article, this subject is non-notable. That's why we're here.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 100% guaranteed to be deleted independent of the Jill Kelley deletion. That deletion makes it 100%. Unless the people involved in this one are "totally and completely divorced' from the deletion of the Kelley article, these "votes" don't matter, so enough with the charade of soliciting them.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You initiated this by calling attention to the precedent of the Jill Kelley deletion. See the top of the page. I'll withdraw my insinuation that that deletion predisposed this review/discussion if you withdraw your nomination and leave it to editors and admins who are, in fact, "totally and and completely divorced" from the Jill Kelley article to get this article deleted.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your false allegation ignores the blatantly obvious: I didn't solicit anything. I didn't seek out and notify anyone, save the author (who is the sole keep !vote), as it is considered polite to do so. I made the obvious analogy. If I remove that sentence, not a bit about the nom will change, nor would any one of these votes. Now, if you really want to make a soliciting/canvassing allegation, you should talk to the sole keep voter who placed the link to this in the DRV about the other article. THAT is someone hoping that the support he may find there will spill over here. Or you can take that false allegation to ANI. I could use the laugh. In short, spare me your incorrect bad-faith allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of hypocrisy is not an accusation of canvassing. You kicked off this back and forth by saying that my references to the Jill Kelley deletion were unwelcome here, yet you kicked off this whole discussion by pointing readers towards the Jill Kelley deletion. A clear consensus here is not proof that your "nom would have stood on its own" equally clearly because that's a hypothetical. I stand by my view that as it stands right now a deletion verdict here is inevitable.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you said a charade of soliciting them. Where did I solicit any vote? You've misrepresnted what I actually said and wasted a bunch of time. What you have failed to do thus far is opine on the topic of the damn discussion. Instead of contributing to that matter, you've just been a disruption. Stand by your false allegation all you want. It isn't my credibility that is being degraded. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, no matter which way you try to spin it, for whatever reason, there is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. This is a big story and it is about time that attackers of this topic back off, stop their obfuscation and WP:LAWYERING, and let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a big story" - yes, but it's still one event. I probably overuse the analogy but Conrad Murray was not notable for being a doctor (or a friend) to Michael Jackson before his death - that's why his "biography" doesn't exist. His name redirects to Trial of Conrad Murray - the article about the one event that caused him to be covered here. Even the "reliable sources" provided to verify her previous activity refer this subject's appearances as "22 minutes of fame". She was not notable before this event and she is now receiving coverage because of this event. Had this one event not happened, she would remain entirely non-notable and we would never consider having an article about her. That's pretty much right in the ballpark of WP:BLP1E. No-one is suggesting that the Petraeus scandal is non-notable, nor that those involved should be covered there. But we don't need to cover her previous cooking show appearances here, there or anywhere else and we certainly don't need a biographical article to rehash (again) the Petraeus scandal but with the addition of a bunch of irrelevant trivia about an otherwise non-notable person. Stalwart111 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Jill Kelley is undeleted (see the DRV discussion), then this should merge and redirect there. If not, it should be deleted as a BLP1E (two generals signing an affadavit for her, on the intervention of her sister) and redirected to the Petraeus scandal article, as a viable search term. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This points up the proper dividing line for BIO1E cases nicely. Her sister is notable despite BIO1E, while the subject, for the reason mentioned by so many above, is not. I refrain from an full delete endorsement only in acknowledgement of the excellent point made by the anonymous poster above - if the Kelly article is restored a protected redirect is appropriate,otherwise delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obina Carrick

[edit]
Obina Carrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer, who has somehow moved from a top flight Nigerian team to a minor New Zealand team. Article claims two appearances for a team in the Nigerian top flight team, but I do not believe this to be true. a google search brings back only six hits, all for WP or mirrors. Seems to inherently fail WP:GNG regardless of the veracity of his appearances in a fully professional league. Lack of google hits suggests to me a fake player. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Creator has been warned of creating similar additional non-notable articles. PROD removal without any type of fix does not help establish fairly strict notability requirements that this does not have. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlast Boys FC

[edit]
Greenlast Boys FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD removed with no explanation.Very minor football club playing at a low level in Malaysia, the league they play in does not have its own article yet. Appears to fail WP:FOOTYN because of this and also WP:GNG as the name brings back only four hits, all WP. Potential speedy(?) but I don't know enough about the Malaysian football league structure to say for sure. Does not appear to answer in the affirmative to any of the questions posed in the useful WP:NFOOTYCLUB essay either. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO
Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO
Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO
Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO
The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. It should be noted that there are no references in RSSSF. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Manning

[edit]
Luke Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. None of the sources are about the subject of the article. Many are articles that he has written, but I can't find any that discuss his writing. Others are unreliable or not independent. Searches for ""luke manning" musician", ""luke manning" journalist" and ""luke manning" businessman" don't bring up any possible sources. SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abaran Bangalore

[edit]
Abaran Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; Notability not established and more of an advertisement than an article. Possible COI as well. Subject appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. Non notable jewellery store. Hu12 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some hits on Google News for Abaran Bangalore without quotes, but not really enough, so I would say delete too. Probably more sources in Indian media though. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mārtiņš Milašēvičs

[edit]
Mārtiņš Milašēvičs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (2013 film)

[edit]
The Game (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (films), and especially WP:NFF, Wikipedia should not have articles on films in production unless the film meets Wikipedia:Notability. There are no reliable, independent sources in this article to indicate notability for this film. The one seemingly independent source - to Michigan Movie Magazine Biz - is an openly avowed "press release". The only sources I've been able to find are self promotion ([18], for instance) or passing references that do not meet the requirement. After the film is released, if it is notable, an article would be appropriate. Without substantial independent sourcing, it seems it is not now. (Please note that the article has been heavily edited by single purpose accounts with a strong focus on this film and filmmaker. This not in itself a reason I nominate for deletion, but may result in a similar grouping weighing in.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign button

[edit]
Campaign button (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic Campaign button (political) and one other topic Campaign Button (album). Past efforts to fix this were rebuffed.[19]. The Campaign button DAB page should be deleted and Campaign button (political) moved back to Campaign button. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the template {{Fionn Regan}} has a link to the album which will need to be updated. PamD 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubcore

[edit]
Dubcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and speculative article. No substantial sources found on google news search or on pitchfork, RA, NME... basically fails WP:NOTABILITY. - filelakeshoe 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Google Books found some music-related results but only one of them appears to be relevant for this electronica genre, the second result from the top. Google News found nothing useful and I performed a main Google search as a desperate measure but found nothing useful either. It seems this genre exists but there isn't any significant and reliable evidence to support this article and mentioning "dubcore" at dubstep and metalcore probably wouldn't be the best option either because there wouldn't be any appropriate sources to support this genre exists. At best, this term is probably fairly new and hasn't been widely recognized. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) patently false; Korn is a nu metal or heavy metal band; (2) we almost always delete new musical genre artciles, see WP:OUTCOMES#Music. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW the reference to Korn was because of their last album which featured Skrillex and Excision as guest producers and was described as "metalstep" by some critics, I added a sentence about this to the dubstep article after nominating this. This name "dubcore" seems pretty unsupported and the whole sound is non-notable at the moment. - filelakeshoe 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primarily because all the bands mentioned on here will come under a already existing music genre electronicore. A fusion of metalcore, post-harcore and various types of electronic music, including trance, drum and bass and dubstep. This 'Dubcore' had no supporting sources and so just is the creation of a few random people, not journalistic research. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinan Kanatsiz

[edit]
Sinan Kanatsiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence that this person meets the notability criteria for inclusion. All the references are basically either his own website, or from his own publicity materials, with their talk of him "effectively" making "his mark as an outstanding technology entrepreneur". I can find nothing about his company KCOMM, even though it is apparently "one of the most recognized in its field" - all I can find are press releases. Overall, this reads like either a promotional article, or an attempt to "legitimise" its subject. All in all, this man does not meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably 70-85% of my Google News archives were press releases. Although I found some non-promotional links such as this (notes that he is also the chief marketing officer for weightview.com), this (announcing he has been appointed a four-year term at SAFE-BIDCO), this (one of the organizers through KCOMM of the Anaheim International Film Festival), this (presents a University of California at Irvine webinar), this (two brief mentions) and this (fourth result from the top, noting he received a California Community College Distinguished Alumni Award in 2006). I also found this which suggests he is also the co-founder and chairman of the Anaheim International Film Festival and this where he moderated a marketing event. As you can see for yourself, the next results are mostly press releases. It seems he is best known for KCOMM but he would probably be notable for the Anaheim International Film Festival position as I found other relevant results here and here. With the press releases outweighing the number of appropriate sources, I'm reluctant to say this article could be improved. Although he has received several recognitions and awards, focusing too much with that may be promotional. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's a public relations (PR) professional and he has been profiled in a variety of press releases. That's not notability. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent sources, lots of CVs and press releases aren't enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Droichead Beag

[edit]
An Droichead Beag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pub. No independent coverage beyond routine treatment in tourist guides; nothing special about this pub compared with thousands of others. Article creator was blocked as an apparent sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rotolo

[edit]
Chris Rotolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nicely written article about a non-notable journalist. The subject is apparently a "prominent journalistic and editorial voice in the Asbury Park, New Jersey area". He writes for a notable publication, Asbury Park Press and publishes his own blog, but I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. There are exactly zero Gnews hits for "Chris Rotolo". Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. — sparklism hey! 07:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rakshit Wahi

[edit]
Rakshit Wahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proof of notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed. (Speedily deleted by as G11 by User:Jimfbleak) NAC Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of health and fitness website

[edit]
List of health and fitness website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for personal blogs Rubaisport (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content has changed since I tagged for deletion, but the scope of the article, according to the title, is too wide and impossible to fulfil.Rubaisport (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Buckley

[edit]
Dylan Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Australian rules player that as far as I can determine has never actually played a single pro match, at least according to the bio in the website of the team that drafted him. Seems to be the son of a famous player however, notability is not inherited. §FreeRangeFrog 06:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG is met. I had to rewrite the article as it was a copyvio from his club profie page. WP:AFL is a little bit more lenient on articles for currently listed players than WP:FOOTBALL or some other sports, mainly due to the tightly restricted squads - they are only updated once a year (which is the draft, the main one is actually happening later tonight), they are then fixed for the season, there are no "academies" or youth teams that may have players that are called up during the year, etc. Whilst notability isn't temporary, if a player is later delisted without playing in the AFL, then it is likely I would vote redirect to a team player list article, unless there is significant coverage. But given the (in some people's opinion) saturation coverage of the sport, especially in Melbourne, it isn't hard to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources on most high draft picks, or in this case, a Father-Son Rule selection (so in AFL, notability can be inherited!). The-Pope (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just look at the sources already in the article, he's had articles written solely about him in some of Australia's biggest newspapers. Clearly meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Per WP:WITHDRAWN, while project inclusion guidelines (in this case AFL) do not trump top-level ones, I see the subject of this bio meets at least WP:GNG as an athlete given the sources in the article already. If someone other than myself or the !voters here wants to do a non-admin closure, go for it. §FreeRangeFrog 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The virtually identical AfD International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 closed as a Keep as well. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008

[edit]
International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The article is a long list of world leaders when results of United States presidential election, 2008 were out; different ways of saying congratulations and hopes on seeing a new leader rise. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, "so what?" Our article Obama says that his election was a first; everyone else repeats this obvious point. Is it noteworthy that everyone states the obvious? Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are your opinions though, the fact is that countries did react to that, they did not have to as some did not but some of them did. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Obama had various ceremonial meetings over the past few weeks too, and no doubt a lot of them got newspaper coverage somewhere; but they were all surely too unimportant in the long run to merit our coverage. I don't see you trying to demonstrate the importance of these reactions. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ceremonial meetings are daily business for a head of state, but the presidential election in one of the most powerful nations of the world are exceptional since a possible change in US policy is going to be a global factor and will automatically prompt noteworthy reactions from other governments. Including these reactions in the main elections article would however make that article too large, so keep this one. De728631 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can hardly be clearly notable when so many people believe that it is not! Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 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, TheSpecialUser TSU 03:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per my comment at the 2012 article. [20] This one is a bit different because it's been around for 4 years. But all the more reason to try to clean it up and focus on the long term impact of Obama's initial election on the international scene. And as I stated at the other article, there's a way to summarize this and merge it with other articles about American foreign policy, or Obama's foreign policy in particular. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Azar LeBlanc

[edit]
Judy Azar LeBlanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable author, article tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. (Can't find the books mentioned when searching the Library of Congress website, but not sure if everything is available online.[21]) Bjelleklang - talk 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I cleaned up the bibliography a bit. There is a hit at LOC for her, but only for Theology 101. Most (but not all) of her work is vanity or self-published. There is evidence of some significant third-party review. Faustus37 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of her books are self-published (WestBow Press is the self-publishing arm of Thomas Nelson). She won a 2011 International Book Award, but that is a "pay to win" award where you pay $70 per category to enter and they have so many categories and sub-categories and runner ups etc.. it's not a big deal to win (marketing scheme for self published authors). She has two professional reviews which is significant, but not enough to establish notability. If someone can find 4 or 5 reviews I might change my position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:53, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:20, 14 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, TheSpecialUser TSU 03:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick Prophets

[edit]
Lipstick Prophets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article not because I'm 100% certain it isn't notable, but because it is very difficult at this point to prove that it is - and even in that case, the entire text would need to be rewritten from scratch. The article consists of an uncited lead, along with a section listing print magazine mentions with no text cited from any of the articles in question. Additionally, the company it refers to seems to no longer exist, as the previously listed "official site" is now a company that produces textiles rather than a fashion line as described in the article - which means further press for the brand is unlikely. While I will see if I can locate some of the magazines mentioned to see whether these features meet WP:RS, I am hoping that some conclusion can be made here - whether it involves deletion or a major overhaul to turn it into a useful article. I did my best to remove glaring issues such as peacock language and non-RS-compliant sourcing, but I'm afraid there wasn't much I could do to fix it without access to those print sources. Feather Jonah (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this AFD nom was missing some things so I added them and changed the header level to comply with deletion log page formatting. Ordinarily, it's considered good form to advise the original article creator that the article has been nominated. However, in this particular instance, User:Tallulah13 has not edited since May 2009 so the likelihood that she would notice the message is pretty low. Probably okay as is. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's my first time doing this - I tried to follow the AfD tutorial. Feather Jonah (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! If you have the Twinkle tools the XFD tool is very good for AFDs. Cheers! Stalwart111 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:29, 14 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 03:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a totally non-notable mess of an article. Lacking in any real information whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the ghits I see are from buzzfeed. Beyond that it seems the actual company is no longer in business (?). Fails WP:PRODUCT. The designer seems to be borderline notable but that's not in consideration here. §FreeRangeFrog 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation. Very weak sources in Google News, all seem to be passing mentions alongside other brands/designers in lists. Problematic because of the list of print sources given, we have no way of knowing that these aren't simply photoshoots where a garment from the label was included. I suspect "coverage" is a swanky way of saying a T-shirt or whatever was in a photograph. However, the "full stories", "editorial spreads" and "articles" (as distinct from "coverage") sound like they could probably qualify as RS, so if someone has access to these magazines/issues, they could probably create a much more acceptable article. These are the promising-sounding sources from the article, just in case someone wants to recreate the article and has access to back issues of these magazines.
  • Tattoo Savage 2 page spread covering Lipstick Prophets in April 2009 issue, pages 18/19.
  • Inked magazine: article on Barone & LP in Sept/Oct 2008 issue, article by Rachel Aydt, pages 72/73; editorial in Feb 2008 issue.
  • Paper (magazine) feature on Barone, Feb. 2007, page 76, article by Johnathan Durbin.
  • Punk Rock Confidential feature about LP, Spring 2007, article by Sunny Channel; also editorial in Spring 2008.
  • Alternative Press "full story" on LP in issue 214, article by Leslie Simon, May 2006, page 74.
Mabalu (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

101 Philosophy Problems

[edit]
101 Philosophy Problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability issues in April 2012, a search turned up barely anything notable regarding the topic except a few PDF's and reviews. Found sources via a search do not class as reliable. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

[edit]
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, individual does not appear to be notable. Sole claim to notability is that he publishes academic papers... like all professors do. This is also Sven Manguard 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 7 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 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the nominator has a good argument with respect to WP:PROF/C1, the usual handwavey h-index metrics don't seem to be met via Google Scholar in isolation. However, once some of the book authoring is taken into account, well, I think there's more to consider. Worldcat, which generally focuses on English-language library holdings, notes a couple hundred copies (each) of two of this books in different libraries, a book he co-authored got a review in The Hindu here, another book reviewed at the Daily Times of Pakistan here, he's interviewed here [23]. I could couch this in WP:AUTHOR terms, but more generally I think there's some components of signficance in the academic papers, the books, and in commentary in the popular press, and that those sum to greater than our notability threshold. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat tells us nothing in this case because Pakistan is not part of the worldcat collective. Pakistani works don't make it in. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about WP:PROF? None of the highly cited papers for 'Cheema' match publications listed on the page. I suspect there's more than one person with a similar name. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhane (Power Rangers)

[edit]
Zhane (Power Rangers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Sixth Ranger" in Power Rangers In Space. The show is definitely notable, but the character seems to lack standalone notability. Suggesting either outright deletion or, at minimum, a merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 1 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 6 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 00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on ElectroMagnetic Interference & Compatibility

[edit]
International Conference on ElectroMagnetic Interference & Compatibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 6 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 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skint (TV series)

[edit]
Skint (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable TV-series. Tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 7 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 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the sources given, the only one that is marginally usable is the article from the Sun. However, the problem with the Sun is that it's borderline tabloid, with some users considering it an out and out tabloid, so be prepared for some to state that the Sun is unusable as anything other than a trivial source at best or would be an outright unusable source at all. The other links appear to either be primary sources or links to dead sources that appear to have been non-notable blog type stuff. So the sources are sorely lacking. As far as it running on prime time, that in itself isn't enough to give notability. It just makes it more likely that sources do exist out there. I'll see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that multiple reliable sources exist for this subject. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow Talk 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rise & Shine (Ian McLagan album)

[edit]
Rise & Shine (Ian McLagan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Non-notable album with no refs except a review from AllMusic. Tagged with {{notability}} since December 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:BEFORE: There are also reviews from Paste magazine, and PopMatters, and several other articles discussing the album from sources such as the Chicago Sun-Times, No Depression, and there was a NPR item that shows up in GNews. Even if there was no coverage, deletion is rarely appropriate for studio albums by notable artists as there are better alternatives. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 7 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 00:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seminar marketing

[edit]
Seminar marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable concept tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 7 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 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 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, KTC (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolgow

[edit]
Dolgow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely composed of original research; I'm not finding any information on this spelling of the name, I do see a few people with this last name, but nothing on the history. To summarize, my concerns lie within verifiability, original researach and for that matter notability. Go Phightins! 02:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redirect to Wustrow, Lower Saxony, where the village referred to is a component of the town. It is possible that one or more articles will be added in future on people with this surname, or that the village will be found worthy of a freestanding article, so this should be preserved for context then, but currently I see insufficient reason for creating the village article so the town is the next logical redirect target. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crude mixup of facts. Local historian. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:02, 6 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 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only bit of information in the article actually pertaining to this article is that Dolgow is the German spelling of Dolgov. Firstly, this is self-evident in German orthography (can you think of any other way to spell Dolgov in German?). Secondly, this piece of information belongs in two places only: in an article about any place called Dolgov, if it was historically or otherwise significantly referred to in German; and in a general article about the German spelling of Slavic toponyms. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of My-HiME terminology

[edit]
List of My-HiME terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is there really a need for a separate terminology article for My-HiME? Not only is it all in-universe, but the only reference is the anime itself. I would have considered not nominating this for deletion if there was any real-world discussion/analysis/references or even any reception, but there isn't any. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article terminology section just has a link to this list, so why did you come here instead of just merging it back? If this is important to describe to readers so that they'll understand the series, then it should exist in some form, shouldn't it? Asking for separate "reception" of these elements of the works of fiction is a bit off the mark if this is an attempt to separate and deconstruct parts of those works. Maybe it should be merged into the plot and character sections rather than a separate section. Or it may be that this is mostly trivia and not really important to the series? I don't know. But that discussion should happen, and as an editing discussion about how best to describe and cover the underlying topic, not as a "fails XYZ rules so delete it" AFD discussion. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's a terminology article. Terminology sections or articles are almost always entirely fancruft and merging them back to the parent article would just be a burden. At most the most important terms can be briefly discussed in the plot section (see Shakugan no Shana on how to do so), but detailed explanations like this have to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you're judging this based on a preconceived notion you have about a general class of content rather than on your familiarity with this particular topic. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:NOTPLOT. There has been previous precedent on merging or deleting articles that are entirely in-universe and filled with fancruft, but consolidating and merging it back into the main article seems like the way to go for the time being, at least until it could be reincorporated into the series' plot and the terminology section eventually phased out.--十八 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Rockstar North. There is consensus that the subject alone isn't notable and that a redirect is more appropriate. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Garbut

[edit]
Aaron Garbut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, unreferenced BLP This is also Sven Manguard 19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment References now added. As can be seen by using the Google links above, the subject crops up in quite a number of places. The only question is whether these all derive from his role at Rockstar / Grand Theft Auto and fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 7 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 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rockstar North - I think deleting the article wouldn't be appropriate because it seems he has a rather significant role at Rockstar North and there are plenty of sources (though more than half of them appear to be only interviews) but there isn't much aside from his Grand Theft Auto work. If he happens to gain attention for other work, non-GTA or Rockstar North (except if it's another large and well-known series causing him to receive better and more in-depth attention), then the article could be restarted with better information. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per User:SwisterTwister. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regify

[edit]
Regify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software company; again, sourcing is mostly regurgitated press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 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 01:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Dundas

[edit]
Antony Dundas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to have had a fully professional career as a player, and I doubt the notability as referee--but I admit my unfamiliarity with this as an organized sport. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 8 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 01:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no specific notability guideline (SNG) for darts players under WP:NSPORTS, and therefore the subject must meet the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia. Having reviewed the article, it contains only one source, an entry on a darts player database that cannot be used to establish notability. Per WP:GNG, I cannot find multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No comments after three re-listings, therefore there is no consensus. No prejudice against a speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Lee (musician)

[edit]
Annabel Lee (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable musician. Article fails WP:BAND, most references appear to be books translated by her. Bjelleklang - talk 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 7 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 01:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autostrad

[edit]
Autostrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NMUSIC. Rafy talk 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 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 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KLone (web server)

[edit]
KLone (web server) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted with a PROD tag but is now back. A citation to a short article at linux-magazine.com was added, but this is not the significant coverage in multiple sources required by the general notability guideline. I looked but did not find additional sourcing, so I think this should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 7 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 01:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Meekal Hasan Band. MBisanz talk 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mekaal Hasan

[edit]
Mekaal Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Does not pass WP:BAND, the two albums were recorded by Mekaal Hasan Band. The one reference listed is to a short paragraph about Zoe Rahman stating that Mekaal Hasan appeared as a band member while she toured in Pakistan. Bjelleklang - talk 12:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 7 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 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reyn Ouwehand

[edit]
Reyn Ouwehand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician with no independent references. Does not pass WP:BAND unless someone can verify the information on "Woezel & Pip"[29], as most hits I get for this appears to be Wikipedia ripoffs.

Also see related afds:

Bjelleklang - talk 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If his website is accurate then he meets WP:BAND under criterion #2 - he claims to have charted #1 in Switzerland with the album, Eldorado (actually he claims this is his 5th #1). The album is apparently co-produced and co-written by Ouwehand. He also claims to be signed to Chrysalis and has apparently produced an album for EMI (both major labels). There are several other tidbits like this in the News section of his site. But of course all of this requires independent verification to earn my weak keep !vote. -Thibbs (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this one; it's been open for nearly a month, and with only one comment from someone other than the nominator and after being relisted thrice, the maximum, there's simply no consensus as to what the proper course of action for the article would be. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Mongia

[edit]
Atul Mongia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Casting directors rarely get much media attention. Mongia isn't the exception to the rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 1 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:20, 7 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 01:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zone-Tan (Character)

[edit]
Zone-Tan (Character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined WP:Prod. Non-notable mascot, with little to no third party references to justify notability. Tinton5 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy C

[edit]
Joy C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously proposed for BLPProd. Has 3 references 1 of them links to a hindu.com article that has a one sentence mention of one of the purported pen names of this article subject. 1 link to english wikipedia that does not mention subject at all. 1 link to malayalam wikipedia - have no idea what it says, google translate does not support this language yet, but in any case a wikipedia article is not a valid reference. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Writer is "a popular novelist in Malayalam language", which has 38 million native speakers, most in a single state in India. How do we establish notability within that context? It appears there is a rich Malayalam literature tradition, but determining contemporary popular novelist is going to be extremely difficult. She does have an entry in this list[30] (under Josi Vagamattam) so we know she exists. Puzha.com claims to be a major online literary magazine for Malayalam literature and a search of their site doesn't turn up much. A search of google.in with "Vagamattam" turns up very little. Based on this I propose delete as non-notable but open to change if someone finds another way to search as this is a difficult case, but I'm not even seeing a hint of notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment a double relist on an article with no no votes (even the creator!)? Treat it like an endorsed prod at min? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have no idea if the claims to notability presented in that article are valid, but I do know that if something cannot be sourced, it should be deleted. Especially a BLP. Language barriers suck, but verifiability is more important. When and if a bio of this person is successfully sourced, then it can stay. Otherwise it fails WP:BIO and it should go. §FreeRangeFrog 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. MBisanz talk 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student Life in IIT Kharagpur

[edit]
Student Life in IIT Kharagpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Over-long / unnecessarily detailed and trivial content that if it belongs anywhere is as a small section in IIT Kharagpur. Bob Re-born (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. I thought of cleaning up the article by removing content citing self published sources, but soon realized that utmost a single paragraph will remain about a couple of halls in the campus. And I doubt such a topic could be expanded and sure isn't notable. Suraj T 09:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:32, 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, Go Phightins! 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It can't be relisted a fourth time, and there's marginal consensus to keep, so I'll close it as such. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tickety toc

[edit]
Tickety toc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a TV show. Korean language article has some refs, but I don't have enough Korean language to tell whether they're reliable source; at least some are not independent. PROD removed by IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:21, 1 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 11:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Information Responsibility

[edit]
Corporate Information Responsibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This essay on a non-notable neologism started out as a coatrack for advertising one particular company's (Iron Mountain) view (and, not surprisingly, solutions) regarding this issue, and was sourced almost exclusively to a report by that company or to reports by other companies referring to their interaction with Iron Mountain. The article was PROD'ed, but dePROD'ed by a subsequent editor who added independent sources. While the new sources are independent, they fail to verify the facts in question. The whole article reads like a how-to guide, and there is still no indication that this terminology has gained any real foothold outside of Iron Mountain and its customers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails multiple policies on appropriate articles. If it were actually neutral and considerably shorter, I might suggest a merge into Business Ethics, but the content of this article goes well beyond such an inclusion, and reads more like a "Why you should do business with our company". besiegedtalk 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Cubieboard

[edit]
Cubieboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Evidence of the existence of this product exists. Interest exists, also, in knowing about all forms of Arm based SBCs. Personal prejudices against specific countries does not meet Wikipedia requirements for deletion justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.8.185 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence, please. Show me some evidence that the product exists. Then show me some evidence backing up your false accusation of "personal prejudices against specific countries." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it qualifies as evidence, but code has been submitted to the U-Boot mailing list to incorporate U-Boot support for the Cubieboard ([1]). Also lots of discussion about it on IRC #arm-netbook ([2]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.221.113 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (non-admin closure). PKT(alk) 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Peterson and Nelson Riddle

[edit]
Oscar Peterson and Nelson Riddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG Shaz0t (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Season (2012 film)

[edit]
Dead Season (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable film. There is an imdb entry, but that seems to be about it. Dengero (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Dead Undead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Slaughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parasitic (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Christian

[edit]
White Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to indicate widespread use of this term in the manner described. When the average American hears this term they are likely to think of "a Christian who is white", not automatically assume it refers to the KKK or any of the other groups listed in this article. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:Not a dictionary since it is only the definition of an expression. I have seen it used this way by "neo-Nazi" type persons. I kind of understand their meaning as being "white and not Jewish." But not exactly what the article says. I'm sure that almost all Christians would agree that a person who identifies himself as a "white Christian" is not really a Christian, although certainly some Christians do have racial and religious prejudices. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Wikipedia ambiguity to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 12:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parramatta Generals

[edit]
Parramatta Generals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:FOOTYN. a lower division amateur side. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO
Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO
Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO
Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO
The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. It should be noted that there are no references in RSSSF or OzFootball. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, without prejudice as to renaming the article. I ignored the technical fact that the nominator did not present a valid reason for deletion, as others subsequently have provided such reasons. I also ignored !votes based on irrelevant issues. For example, WP:CONSENSUS is an administrative/procedural principle; using it to keep or delete an article makes as much sense as relying on WP:IAR for it. The consensus seems to be that the article needs substantial work to become unbiased, but the tool for that is an editor's pen, not an admin's axe. Owen× ☎ 01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

[edit]
Related AfDs for this article (Todd Akin comment only article) - AfD 1: No consensus AfD2: The result was merge to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 and/or Todd Akin, or such other articles as may be created in the future.:
Related AfDs for this article (Richard Mourdock comment only article) - Delete and merge:
Related Deletion Review for Richard Mourdock - Endorse deletion:
Move discussion :(Discuss) – Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy
Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article. It might as well be titled List of things nasty Republicans said that offended people. A wider article on the election debates and media might contextualise this, but this is just always going to be a list of statements that made brief headlines in a partisan election cycle. We are not a partisan news aggregation.

Yes, I know it was suggested by another AFD. But that's a process matter, my problem is that we're committed to neutrality, and this article is not neutral (go on read the introduction) and there's not a hope it could ever be.Scott Mac 00:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Article, New AfD Just to clarify, there was an AfD on a completely different Article, a standalone Article solely on Todd Akin's comments. The result of that was that THAT Article, the sole topic of the AfD, could not continue to exist. It no longer exists, as per consensus, but its CONTENTS were to be merged several places. The Akin standalone AfD did not per se endorse THIS article nor mandate its creation, it merely said that, in addition to merging to the named, specific, articles, if an editor wanted to imminently start a new article that was entirely different from that one (and any autoconfirmed editor is free do do so at any time), they were free to also merge content there. The AfD closed on Nov 18, and later that day Casprings created this entirely new article. This NEW article is the sole topic of this AfD. Process issues do exist due to the improper move/merge subsequent to the AfD close, but those are technical issues only, and with the old Article's AfD, not this one. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading the previous AfD from which this was born, I am not seeing anywhere to validate this article which is clearly positioned as a page to attack. Most of the so called controversy are little more than attempts to tag the individual onto the Todd Akin comments. Additionally, the "Overall Response" section is clearly Original Research, it even reads like a research paper. Arzel (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also have the problem of editors tendentiously changing names during the AfD (as happened in the Mourdock controversy AfD), which confused the AfD process, and made conclusion difficult. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not being neutral is not a reason to delete an article (WP:SUSCEPTIBLE), especially on a notable topic that was one of the central themes in the 2012 US elections. If we can maintain an NPOV in articles concerning abortion and Palestine, it is certainly possible here as well. I don't agree that this should be renamed to a POV title and wonder why the nominator did not try to address POV issues through editing or by engaging on the talk page. Gobōnobō + c 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be notable comments or reports WITHIN this article; virtually no political article does not have items that the press reports on, but it is highly doubtful that the TOPIC of THIS article is both notable and merits a standalone article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion would seem to ignore the many sources used within the article that link the various rape and pregnancy related gaffes. The sources demonstrate a discrete topic that meets WP:N. These ongoing attempts to forum shop and Whac-A-Mole articles that don't adhere to the Fox News narrative bespeak a tendentious, battleground mentality that ill serves our readers. Gobōnobō + c 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only connection is that partisans TRIED to tar any and all Republicans with the "just like Akin" brush. It worked exactly once.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very bad rational for deleting the article is, "It will be really really hard to make it WP:NPOV. Not only does this clearly meet WP:N there is a clear WP:EFFECT of these events when taken together. From the article itself:

The overall response to the multiple comments and controversies was negative, with many crediting them for Republican losses during the election. In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, an American political consultant and policy advisor, credited "offensive rape comments" with "costing Republicans two Senate seats".[3] On the federal level, the controversies were cited as causing or contributing to the defeat of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Linda McMahon, Tom Smith and John Koster.[4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] However, Sen. Patty Murray, the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said "[The] offensive comments from Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did not decide this election. It was a result of hard work and critical strategic decisions over many months."[13]

Many liberals credited the controversy with helping pro-choice political candidates[who?]. In an article in Salon, Joan Walsh wrote "suddenly Americans had to try to imagine how doctors or hospital administrators or law enforcement officials would decide what was 'legitimate rape,' as opposed to something else. Rape panels?"[14] Conservative blog Hot Air linked Akin's remarks to a positive ten percent shift in US public opinion polls toward supporting legalizing abortion in all circumstances.[15]Also, the multiple comments were credited for aiding in the re-election of President Barack Obama.[16]

The comments also were credited with helping the President Obama win the women's vote. Karen Hughes, a former George W. Bush adviser, in an op-ed in Politico stated: "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'"[17] According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. Comments from otherwise low profile candidates such as Rep. Todd Akin, may have cost Mitt Romney the election and also reinforced for some voters concerns that the GOP is out of touch with women.[18]

  1. ^ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/201539/
  2. ^ http://irclog.whitequark.org/arm-netbook/search?q=cubieboard
  3. ^ Rove, Karl. "Rove: The Lessons of Defeat for the GOP". Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  4. ^ Culp-Ressler, Tara. "Rape Comments Cost Anti-Choice Candidates Their Seats". Think Progress. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  5. ^ FETTERS, ASHLEY. "Did Inflammatory Remarks About Rape and Abortion Doom GOP Candidates?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  6. ^ SCHULTHEIS |, EMILY. "Rape comments bring down Mourdock, Akin". Politico. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  7. ^ Levintova, Hannah. "The Republican Rape Caucus Crumbles". Mother Jones. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  8. ^ "Republican candidates lose after rape comments". ABC News. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  9. ^ CASSATA, DONNA. "After rape comments, Mourdock loses bid for Indiana Senate seat". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  10. ^ "Republican Rape Remark Candidates Defeated". Sky News. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  11. ^ McVeigh, Karen. "Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock fall to Senate defeats". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  12. ^ Black, Jeff. "Rape remarks sink two Republican Senate hopefuls". NBC News. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  13. ^ Liptak, Kevin. "Top Democrat says 'rape' comments didn't determine Senate outcome". CNN. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  14. ^ WALSH, JOAN. "How choice became a winning issue". Salon. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  15. ^ Allahpundit. "Rasmussen: 54% now call themselves pro-choice, 38% pro-life". Hot Air. Retrieved 27 November 2012.
  16. ^ "The failed 'war on women': 5 big election victories for women". This Week. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
  17. ^ Karen Hughes (2012-11-12). "Communication lessons from the election". p. 2. Retrieved 2012-11-18.
  18. ^ Abdullah, Halimah. "How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong". CNN. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
So the argument is, we are going to delete the article, even when there is great evidence that it has WP:EFFECT? Moreover, some of that evidence comes from Republicans? I didn't even go into the change in pubic opinion to being more Pro-Choice, etc. This is a clear example of WP:CENSOR. I do admit that getting a WP:POV article is hard. I would even suggest making the article fully protected and allowing administrators to edit it would be a good idea.Casprings (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous two opinions have mirepresented the nomination entirely. I didn't nominate this because it is currently not neutral - I nominated it because it is inherently non-neutral. It cannot be fixed. A list of "controversies", organised by a partisan topic, is not a neutral criteria to write an article. We can record this in a wider ballanced article on election themes in this particular election - but you can't pick our a partisan topic and organise cherry-picked cases about it. The article needs deleted. What the fuck has censorship got to do with it. We remove partisan screeds, that's not censorship it is being an encyclopedia--Scott Mac 01:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was no effect. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:EFFECT is strictly to be used as a guide for an EVENT. The event of Akin's blunder is both on the Akin and Campaign articles, the event of Mourdock's statement is on both the Mourdock and campaign articles, and both are on the War on Women article, which is SUPPOSED to be about the Democrat national initiative to generate these wedge issues. You are using a guideline about a singular event, and applying it to a thesis-based article. The actual events are covered in the context of the Articles where they had effect, those mentioned above. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete because "There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article" Leng T'che (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)— Leng T'che (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep and trout nominator.
  1. From a process point of view: This is a deliberate attempt to revert the consensus of a previous AFD closed a few days ago with a new AFD -that is, basically forum shopping.
  2. As for the article merits, the topic is obviously notable, with 124 references. One can understand the synthesis concern above by Stalwart, but it overlooks the crucial fact that the remarks have also been descrived all together by sources: see the last section in the article. This strongly indicates that the episodes can be legitimately put together in a single article.
  3. The NPOV concern is naive: what is POV about this article subject? The existence of the controversies and their impact as a single phenomenon is well established by sources. It's not a POV that it happened that Republicans indeed said these things and that they sparkled a wide debate, in US and elsewhere (I'm European and this stuff was quite well covered here too). If there are specific problems with the content (which is entirely possible), our policy asks us to solve it by editing, not deletion. Saying "this can't be neutral" appears nonsensical. If figures within a political party stir controversy, the POV thing (in the larger sense of systemic bias) would be not covering it. --Cyclopiatalk 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take your trouts and assumption of bad faith elsewhere, particularly when it is simply and demonstrably wrong. I didn't participate in that debate, so I'm hardly forum shopping. I believe this article should not exist - the correct forum to raise that is precisely here. Oh, the second bit it nonsense too. Notability is neither here nor there, since I didn't raise it. Anyway "keep it has lots of references" isn't valid. Calling the nomination "nonsense" won't fly either - but we do need to debate that issue. Systemic bias is a crap argument - we've got lots of articles on the election (more on US election than on any other) so not having this can't possibly be a bias. The point remains, this is a "let's collate (original research by definition) all the things one side said on this topic that got mentioned by their opponents and the media in an election cycle". I'm not suggesting that some of the information can't be kept (it will be on the bios of the candidates) or mention can't be made of it in a general article - just that this isn't a neutral way of doing it.--Scott Mac 01:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You couldn't have misrepresented my !vote anymore -well, I guess it's my fault if I'm not clear. Let me explain:
  1. I didn't participate in that debate, so I'm hardly forum shopping. - That is true, and I used the incorrect expression with "forum shopping". I did assume no bad faith at all -just poor form. It's disruptive to try to overturn a consensus that has been settled in a quite participated AFD discussion after just a few days. If consensus didn't want that article, it would have been apparent there too. Whatever you call it, it looks to me still like trying to discuss again and again until a result is got. You may disagree.
  2. Notability is neither here nor there, since I didn't raise it. - Yes, you didn't. Still, it's better to be clear about that.
  3. Calling the nomination "nonsense" won't fly either - I explained why I find it nonsensical.
  4. Systemic bias is a crap argument - we've got lots of articles on the election ... so not having this can't possibly be a bias. - Well, first of all systemic bias is surely not my main argument up there -it's just to show that deleting this would be paradoxically more POV than keeping it. But let's expand this. Having "lots of articles" on the election means nothing. I am talking of this specific and massively notable and massively impacting controversy. Choosing not to cover it despite its impact and discussion in sources skews our coverage of the election, of the Republican party and of political debate of US in general. No matter how many articles you have, still it skews it.
  5. The point remains, this is a "let's collate (original research by definition)" - The point remains that this is not OR because sources discuss these things in general. If they didn't at all, if only single episodes were discussed, I could agree with you (but well, then we could reorganize it as a list). But they did. The existence of a general controversy about this is fact, reported by sources, and therefore we ought to cover it. --Cyclopiatalk 02:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not questions WP:Good Faith. However, your stated reason does not really fit well as a reason for deletion. From, WP:DEL-REASON:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

The policy does state that the list isn't limited to these. However, if the article is WP:POV, then the solution is to get to work and make it not POVCasprings (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These comments are identified by source after source as having had significant and measurable effects on the outcome of the US elections. It's a textbook example of an article that should be kept under WP:EFFECT. There are problems with the article, but they can and should be solved by editing; these repeated attempts to censor anything that paints Republicans in an unfavorable light, like the fact that they lost the election, are really quite tiresome. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, and an attempt to paint everyone who argues for deletion here as a pro-Republican censor-bot is not particularly helpful. For the record, I'm Australian and couldn't care less about your over-hyped election. These comments (individually) might have been identified by plenty of sources and the impact each individual comment had on each individual race might even have been verified. But bringing them all together with only one or two (not very good) sources to suggest there was a wider impact as a result of collectively interpreted comments is, in my opinion, synthesis. Yes, each specific example is verified and the impact of some specific examples on their respective candidates has also received coverage. But the concept being put forward in this article is that the comments collectively were all so similar that they can be listed as one "idea" and that some broad electoral outcome can be ascribed to them collectively. Some have opined as much but not nearly enough to give this synthesised concept verifiable credibility, in my opinion. Stalwart111 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is far more then one or two sources that suggest that the comments had a national effect. While that section needs to be expanded, it will be easy to do so. If the national effect is there (or even suggested to be there by many, many WP:RS), then it is WP:N, even if the election was over hyped. Casprings (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree entirely that would make it notable. I'm just not seeing those reliable sources right now. There are four suggested sources in the quote-box-thingy you added above. One is from a liberal PAC blog (self-described as such). Another is a op-ed piece from a Democrat attacking Republicans (shock!) while another is direct coverage of that op-ed piece and not much else. The other is another op-ed from Karl Rove. Op-eds aren't the worst thing in the world but I don't think they should be confused with editor-over-sighted "news" content. There's not much "analysis" - just opinion about what might have caused what. Most of it is pretty speculative - not the stuff of encyclopaedic verifiability in my opinion. I'm just uncomfortable with basing a whole article on material like that while a list of "examples" is synthed together behind it. But show me a couple of good analytical sources that ascribe a wider electoral impact on those collective comments and it'll be a different story. Stalwart111 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one area of the article that needs expanding. I will work on it during the coming days. I updated the blue box thingy with some more sources. However, the sources are plenty, it is just putting them together. (You are welcome to help) The op-eds are significant because they come from well known Republicans that are well versed in elections. Casprings (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but in my opinion, many of the "sources" added above are not particularly good. One is actually broadly based on a question and queries whether what is suggested in this article actually happened at all. Not a great source for verifying the statement - "It happened". Another starts by describing the Republican Party as "Team Rape". Maybe it's just me, but I can't see any way such a source could be considered reliable as a source of factual information. Others describe the "issue" (usually with reference to only one or two particular incidents or comments) as being relevant to certain outcomes but only as one of a number of such relevant issues. Certainly not in a way that would justify a standalone article here. They do not cover the instances listed in the article collectively as a group, except in very broad terms. I suppose my issue (when you get down to it) is that Wikipedia is basically the only place where you can find this list, discussed in this way with this impact ascribed to it and in a manner than suggests it is verifiable fact. That's a big WP:OR concern for me. Stalwart111 04:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your delete vote you state, "Election-prompted, non-NPOV, political attack articles designed to synth together a bunch of notionally related things. We would need far more of these sorts of sources to verify that it is a specifically recognised concept beyond "this general idea got some related people into arguably similar trouble". I have just added more sources like the NBC news source the WP:EFFECT. How many more would you like to see?Casprings (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, the only part of my comment you missed was the first sentence where I talked about Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy - the other election-related synth article you created and then re-named during the AFD. As was the case then, you seem to be missing my point. The sources you continue to claim support your WP:OR essay do not. Coverage of a single instance or even two or three instances cannot be extrapolated out to verify the theory that all such instances are the inherently similar and that collectively they had x electoral impact. Again, Wikipedia is now the only place where you can find this "information", framed the way you have framed it. You have collected a bunch of disparate sources about a bunch of different issues and come to your own conclusion that they had a broad, national electoral impact. For that to fly you need reliable sources that discuss a similarly broad group of generally the same incidents along with analysis that comes to the same conclusion you have. In amongst the vast list of "sources" you provided, I found one that came close. Your citation of WP:EFFECT is either mischievous or naive, I think. WP:EFFECT is about whether an event has a long-term impact. No one is questioning (especially in cases where the person has gone on to lose their particular election) that some of these comments had a lasting (electoral) effect in specific cases and the sources back that up in most specific cases. But what you're suggesting is that collectively, they had a national effect, such that they could be considered collectively to be "one event" that needs to be covered in one article here. To verify that claim (I think), you need multiple reliable sources that come to the same analytical conclusion as you. Not about one or two or three specific incidents and their specific impact but about the group of incidents and their collective impact. Otherwise we just create a giant POV Frankenstein's monster. The sources you have provided might be suitable for verifying specific incidents but we still need sources to verify the collective conclusion drawn by the article in question. Stalwart111 22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a deliberately misleading "dumbing-down" of my well-explained position. If I simply didn't like it, I would have said, "I don't like it". In actual fact, I said I didn't care about your election or your politics. I care that creating articles like this sets a precedent for creating articles in which we draw our own conclusions based on sources that do not draw the same conclusions. I regularly "change my mind" at AFD (check my extensive contributions here) and am entirely open to being convinced. In actual fact, I was quite explicit about the sorts of sources I would need to see to be convinced. Instead, you link-spammed more of the same and tried to argue I should be convinced by them. Multiple WP:RS have discussed some of these incidents together and some WP:RS have theorised that specific incidents have had a specific effect in specific cases. But few WP:RS have discussed all (or at least most) of these incidents and theorised they have had a collective effect. But the latter is the conclusion drawn by the article. If that conclusion can be verified by reliable sources then that's great and I'll happily change my "vote". Stalwart111 23:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, many WP:RS have "theorized that these comments have had an effect. You have Karl Rove writing that it had an effect in the WSJ, here. You have Karen Hughes writing the same, here. Given the context (Something WP:RS points to) that is essential. Moreover, you have multiple media sources talking about these comments. Moreover, multiple sources talk about at least the Akin and Mourdock remarks having a national effect. While some of the lesser knowns are not mentioned as much, source after source will at least mention Akin and Mourdock. The New Yorker, here. Salon, here. The Guardian, here. I could continue. The events of the multiple comments are often mentioned and often linked together. Certainly the Akin and Mourdock comments are the more important comments, but the others are also linked. For example, in The Week, they are linked here. For someone like Rivard, he is also linked to Mourdock and Akin. In the Huff post, that can be found, here. (Huff Post is a WP:RS). I have no problem with your view. However, your standard to prove that this was a theme during the US election and it had WP:EFFECT on the election seems to be unreasonable high. Casprings (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I don't think it is "unreasonably high" at all. The article asserts a conclusion based on the supposed collective impact of a number of disparate events linked by a similar theme (rape). In my view, we need for reliable sources to have asserted the same conclusion before it can be included in an article (let alone as the main premise of an article) here at WP. I've already given my comments on those two opinion-editorial pieces. But it's worth pointing out that the analysis subsequently used to verify a conclusion here is limited to (I'm quoting) - "The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments...". That is the extent of the "analysis" in that source. I've made my point (several times) and you've responded (several times) by pointing to the same sources with which I have concerns. For fear of turning this into a bludgeon-fest, I'm going to leave it at that. If you find a couple of sources that actually draw the same conclusion as you then feel free to post them here. Stalwart111 00:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and, as said above, trout nominator for forum-shopping. WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. The fuss over these comments was a major issue in the elections, and played sufficiently badly for women voters that it may have had a significant effect on the outcome of the election in terms of popular vote. This passes the notability, verifiability and reliable sources criteria by a very wide margin. If there are POV problems, fix them in the article, not here. -- The Anome (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INAPPROPRIATE WP:PA problem This allegation of forum-shopping by the nominator is both an egregious personal attack, and a logical impossibility. This article was created less than a week ago, and has never been the subject of any administrative challenge EXCEPT this one and only AfD. Please strike the offending comment. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the material is a conglomeration of all sorts of issues, the linking of them is improper from the git-go. Each individual person with a "controversy" has a separate issue - they are not linked intrinsically for sure, and so each individual "controversy" belongs in the proper BLP. By adding them all together as though they were related, a sort of SYNTH is created which is contrary to Wikipedia goals. Collect (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


COMMENT for all the talk about these issues affecting the election. In 2008 Obama won the women vote 56% to 43%. In 2012 Obama won the women vote 55% to 44%. So how do the keepers explain that Obama lost women in 2012? I know the popular meme that some editors are trying to use here is that the Akin comment and a couple of others helped Romney lose the election. Unfortunately for that to be true one would expect Obama to have improved on the Women vote, but the statistics simply do not back that up. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few possible responses to that. A) It's not my business to analyze the numbers, because I'm not a source. B) The very source you linked states that the gender gap in this election, especially in influential swing states, was bigger than in the last. What a larger gender gap means is that there was a greater percentage difference between men and women. If the percentage of women is about the same but the gender gap is larger, that means a smaller percentage of men voted for Obama in this election. C) Reliable sources state that these issues helped Democrats in the election, and your personal theorizing about what "one would expect" to happen is just that - personal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gender gap is seperate from proportion of women. You are correct that the gender gap was greater, but that is because Romeny recieved more men relative to the women that Obama lost in the previous election, thus the total gap for both was larger. However, the fact is that Obama recieved a smaller proportion of women in 2012 than in 2008. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long mr. WP:EFFECT From the Atlantic Arzel (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with one of the biggest story lines of 2012: that the gender gap was an epic problem for Romney and the GOP in general. It started when the Republican primaries featured conversations about the morality of birth control, which ended up inspiring a tidal wave of women to push Obama over the top. When everything was tallied from 2012 this turned out not to be true. This year's 11-point margin was big, but it wasn't bigger than it was four years ago. According to the exit polls, the margin was actually bigger in 2008—13 percentage points. Obama won women 56 percent to 43 percent in 2008. He won them 55 percent to 44 percent on Tuesday.
  • Arzel, you don't know what would have happened without these comments: thus you can't deduce anything, in both directions, from these numbers. In other words, you don't have a control experiment. 2008 is not a valid control experiment because the circumstances were different, the opponent was different and there were not 4 years of government before. It is well possible that the gender gap would have been even smaller without these comments. We don't know. But no sane person is arguing that we have scientific proof of an objective effect in the election results. What we have is proof of a widespread social and political debate on the subject, and that's all we care and need. --Cyclopiatalk 11:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are claiming there was an effect without any statistics to back up your claim. I have provided statistics that show it to be unlikely. All you have is a bunch of Liberals spouting their opinions claiming that it must have made a difference without any basis in reality. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed there is proof of an effect on the number of votes, and your statistics conversely proves nothing, in both senses (it doesn't prove an effect, it doesn't prove it didn't). The "bunch of Liberals spouting their opinions" is the effect: it stirred a notable debate, in US and elsewhere.--Cyclopiatalk 17:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know it was raining somewhere today in the world as well, ie a bunch of liberals spouting their opinion is hardly notable. You may not have claimed that this had an effect on the election, but that is the reason being given by some. The statistic I have shown, show that their is no evidence of that. Arzel (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cyclopia has made a very telling and correct admission; that the whole of the alleged "notability" or certification that these fairly disparate and unconnectable election season quotes are controversies comes mainly from partisan sources, and that the flurry in the echo chamber is the argument, not that anything in the article had effect beyond two elections, which already have articles that include the mis-statements. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Atlantic article you cite is faulty. The vote count isn't yet completed, so we don't yet know the final vote tally. That article cites exit polling, which is highly flawed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the nominator has not identified a reason for deletion rooted in Wikipedia's deletion policy. The topic is clearly notable and the nominator is not even attempting to argue that it isn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep no valid reason for deletion offered. On the other hand I don't think there is too much to discuss here about notability of the topic, verifiability, reliability of the sources, persistence of the coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
War on Women is the article on the Democrat's wedge issue campaign, and both the AfDs mentioned suggested that any general coordination with National politics be merged into, or was already more appropriately covered there. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, Bearian, the discussion in question was more related to moving an obviously non-NPOV titled article to a slightly less POV title. It was opened and closed by the same editor who created the article. That's not a problem, per se, but I think it indicates how few people were involved. The AFD of the original article occurred before the election which is the focus of this article. This article is (obviously) very different to the original. Besides which, it closed as no consensus. So I think it's a little disingenuous to dismiss a current AFD on the basis of a different AFD, conducted before the event in the article title for an article with a different focus. Stalwart111 23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"all"????, Bearian. This was not a "consensus" target of anything. There are two controversies, both have been determined not to warrant standalone articles, and were to be deleted. ONE article's AfD mentioned the possibility that, if a new Article (not then named or created) wanted to use content, that was OK, (but obviously outside the topic of that AfD). Not a single AfD has mentioned this Article by name, nor has this article ever been the subject of an AfD before. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Stalwart111; there are two AfDs of the Todd Akin article, an entirely separate article, and the relevant one mandated THAT article be Deleted and some content merged to other Articles. Casprings opened a "Move/Rename" discussion on the Talk page in the middle of the AfD, when it was apparent that consensus was that THAT article was to be deleted. After the close of the AfD (Delete and Merge), and after the merge templates had been attached to the appropriate targets, Casprings unilaterally moved the Todd Akin article to an entirely new Article, this one, contrary to the AfD consensus. In addition, the Todd Akin article Talk page, which was only relevant to the old, different, and supposed-to-be-deleted Todd Akin-only Article, was also moved to the new Article, which was created November 18, a highly disruptive action. After the move, which actually was not in accordance with any consensus (Casprings claimed only that a consensus was "beginning" to develop), nor according to the rules of a move request (it was labeled Bold), which cannot be opened and closed by the same editor. AFTER the move, after complaints that a move (that messed up the AfD's delete) also circumvented and confused the Move request discussion (even though that discussion should have been null and void due to deletion), since a move had been done and the MR was still open, Casprings then changed the RfC/MR and deleted the merge headers that were not to be altered until the merges were done. Another name change was immediately proposed by Casprings to change the name that Casprings had just changed.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, very similar things happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney FEMA and Hurricane Sandy controversy - another "controversy" article. Article created - AFD started - article renamed - AFD confused. Then there are all sorts of claims of previous "consensus" when consensus was actually about something else or those !voting at the beginning of the AFD were casting a !vote about a different article altogether. The claim that this article is the result of a previous consensus is plainly wrong. The whole muddy the waters tactic is clearly disruptive, contrary to consensus-building and fairly bad faith to boot. Unfortunately, it's having the desired effect - people are voting "keep" on the basis of a prior "consensus" because they can't work out what actually happened or how this article came to be. Stalwart111 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casprings also pulled the same cr!$R&#p on the Richard Mourdock controversy article, resulting in confusion, and no positive outcome, but the consensus still ended up resulting in Delete.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Restoring comment deleted by Casprings--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wanted the article to be treated as a new AfD, you would of not added the New Article, New AfD note at the beginning of the discussion. Not only is it worded in a non-neutral matter, it makes most editors go, "what the hell." Once added, I felt editors should see clearly and transparently the pervious discussions. Allow them to decide. Claims I didn't act in good faith should be taken elsewhere. Casprings (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any consensus that this AfD brings up "again". Consensus that a Todd Akin controversy Article had to be deleted suggests that this one should be as well, as does the Richard Mourdock controversy article deletion, but neither is absolutely determinative, since this Article is the joining of two Articles that by consensus needed to be deleted. No consensus that this new Article should or should not exist on WP has been reached, though the fact that it is made up of deleted Articles is close to satisfying grounds for Speedy Delete. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I voted "keep or merge" on the Todd Akin controversy article, but an umbrella article that covers all the controversies together is quite justified because of the impact it had on the election in the short term and the US abortion debate in the long term. I disagree with the nominator when he says "There's just no way in hell this could ever be a neutral article." (Why not? Neutrality implies that we cover all significant viewpoints fairly, and give the facts. I see no reason why that cannot be done here) and "...this is just always going to be a list of statements that made brief headlines in a partisan election cycle." (No, the article should also covers reactions, the consequences this had on central Republican support, and the impact the statements had on the election, which included the Republicans losing a presumed safe pick-up in Missouri, and a close race in Indiana.) The nomination's claim that the title may as well be "List of things nasty Republicans said that offended people" is also a silly attack on a strawman argument, and anyone trying to move this article to that title as being just as good as the present title would be reverted and sanctioned for WP:POINT very quickly. Apart from the wide news coverage at the time, the impact of the controversy was lasting since they had a major and probably decisive impact on two senate elections, and caused consternation deep into the Republican party also after the election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be entirely rewritten. This piece is full of bias and largely garbage. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy KEEP I am not entirely unconvinced that someone might possibly be gaming the system. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously an article that's about a how a bunch of comments by Republicans adversely affected Republicans' election results is not going to make Republicans look super awesome. But there are plenty of other articles about controversies on Wikipedia and this article is well-sourced with many quotes from people, including Republicans, who came to that exact conclusion. I don't think that makes the article POV. If the article were POV insofar as it omitted some discussion of how reliable sources said that actually these comments helped Republicans (although I don't think such a discussion by reliable sources exists), then the article should be edited, not deleted. It doesn't seem like there's a notability or fundamental inappropriateness issue here. AgnosticAphid talk 07:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very widely reported; over a long period of time. Of great interest to a large number of people. Topic-wise: it is a natural sub-article of the top-level article on the 2012 campaign season (viz United States elections, 2012). --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutrality issues are not suppose to be addressed by nominating an article for deletion. The article should include information about other reactions to the controversies, but this can be done. Roewyn (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)— Roewyn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per Go Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I consider keeping this an important BLP issue. Having a more detailed overview of this important 2012 election issue in a separate article reduces undue weight and recentism in their respective biographies. The biographies of each person involved were heavily weighted toward this recent controversy instead of their overall public service. Having a separate article helps ease the WP:UNDUE that invariably happens when people get outraged about this or that. Jokestress (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These events were widely covered, and widely linked, in reliable sources. (Just type "Mourdock Akin rape" into Google and take a glance at the results--pretty much every news source in America, and many from abroad). Obviously, it's not SYNTH to link events that thousands of reliable sources also link. As for neutrality issues, those would be best addressed by editing the article, rather than deleting it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely covered in reliable sources. Claim that article can never be NPOV is bunkum. Yworo (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, Merge with War on Women or leave it as a separate article, but in either case re-name the article to something neutral, like "Women's issues in the 2012 U.S. elections" or "Abortion in the 2012 U.S elections". Jesus H. Christ, stop making Wikipedia into a propaganda and sloganeering tool. It's just supposed to be an encyclopedia.71.162.106.56 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)— 71.162.106.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Lack of neutrality is a surmountable problem, not one that should be addressed by AfD, not to mention that the nom is greatly overstating the problem, although that is beside my point. If you're unhappy with an article's apparent POV or another policy violation, then just WP:FIXIT. This applies not only to the nom but also to many of the Delete arguments I see here. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it were possible to fix it. Problem is that several editors seem to want to throw as much crap to the wall and see what sticks. Kind of like the non-controversy John Koster issue which has no place in any article. Hell the guy doesn't even have is own article, but some off-hand remark in a local state election is a controversy that applies to the entire 2012 election process? The POV pushing on that page is simply disgusting. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • His comments were picked up nationally and by his own admission cost him his race. Besides it was a House seat, how is that different then Akin or Mourdock? That said, if there is a problem with the Koster section, lets talk about, take the needed steps to get a consensus, and come to it. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also including the specific identity of the subject (GOP/Republican Party) is required by our rules, and because it's properly sourced, there is no NPOV violation. Whitewashing isn't allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_21&oldid=1142633999"