Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation when more details are available. If anybody wishes userification, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

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

It's simply too early, and the page contains no real content - just a list of riders and the teams they are contracted to race for. Although there are some motorsport season pages that have been created two years in advance - most notably 2014 Formula One season - the creation of these pages is justfied by significant rule changes to the sport that will dramatically alter the category. There is no evidence of any such changes here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 06:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Maybe, but there is not enough to sustain the page on the page itself. It's just a list of drivers who are contracted to race in 2014, and nothing more. Based on that logic, you might as well create a page for the 2015 season, because that is notable and almost certain to happen, even if all we know about the 2015 season is that some riders have contracts to race then. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's see what happens once 2012 & 2013 come and go. With so many variables that will can and will affect any layout in 2014, this runs into WP:TOOSOON. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal and just too early. We should at least wait until the schedule is launched. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There just isn't enough material to sustain an article yet. This article should definitely be created at some point, but right now, its too far in the future to be able to reliably record much information. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 19 September 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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard B. Smith

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

Spotting the battleship Bismarck is hardly enough to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He might pass WP:GNG. GNews turns up a 1981 Parade Magazine feature about him (and a German counterpart).[1] According to a newspaper book review[2], the 1977 book The U.S. Navy: An Illustrated History contains a "sketch" about him, but I'm unable to verify this independently. Here's a nice 2006 article from the Navy Times.[3] Here are some other articles about him, though I'm not sure about the RS status of the sources.[4][5] And there are hundreds of incidental mentions of him in books and news articles about the Bismarck. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I created the article, I honestly don't know whether or not he is notable. I wrote it for some WWII vets who remembered him. Arxiloxos' comment seem to indicate noteworthiness though. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Indicative of our systemic bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSB is not a reason to delete an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not saying it is. He's not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given his status as one of the earliest Americans involved militarily in the war, I think he's notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and WP:OUTCOMES - we have usually kept 'firsts' of this type of person. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Bushranger, Necrothesp & Bearian. Article needs a lot of work, but it is worth keeping. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Spotting Bismarck may not be enough to merit an article. The amount of coverage he's gotten for that spotting, however, is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Camp

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

There does seem to be a hunting camp with more or less the right name, but the only website I could find for it ([6]) doesn't mention this story, and the only mentions of the tale I could find were a tourism site that could just as well be recycling our content and a compendium of Wikipedia articles. Of course the article lacks citations; it was created by an IP years ago. I don't know that this is a hoax but I don't see enough evidence to believe the story. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 29. Snotbot t • c » 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but Purge With Fire, Rename, and Rewrite~~Delete: The story about the Russians appears to be a hoax, or at the very least hard-failing WP:V. The existiance of "Mallo Camp", however, is easily verified: see this gBooks search which clearly establishes Mallo Camp as a place, independent of the motel. As a geographical location and, it appears, a populated place, this likely falls under the remit of Wikipedia's status as a gazzeteer. It needs to be renamed to Mallo Camp, Wyoming and have all the junk about Russians removed though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds to me like a "delete and write some other article" outcome. Mangoe (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the WP:TNT would be appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:23, 5 September 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) 17:51, 5 September 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) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My reading of the SALT I treaty text is that verification was to be made by National technical means of verification, which in those days in the late 1970s meant primarily imagery intelligence. On-site inspections were not contemplated until the INF treaty, years later. SALT II never went into force. Therefore the reference to Russian inspectors is a hoax. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buckshot. A solid and reliable source is needed to support something like this. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the above. No facts prove this. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches for a variety of keywords, e.g. (mallo soviet missile inspector) yield no results. Per Buckshot06's argument, this feels rather hoaxsome. In any case: no evidence of notability. Ammodramus (talk) 18:26, 19 September 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. Sources not in depth enough to meet WP:N Wily D 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMP (Oregon street gang)

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

A speedy deletion template was removed twice without comment. The topic of this article, a gang of high school students, doesn't seem to me to be of sufficient notability; the geographic area is extremely limited and the two references merely mention the existence of this group without according it any notability or importance (other than the idea that it was "first"). No further references were available upon a search. There is no way of verifying the contentions within the article about the meaning of the acronym and they may be original research. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reliable sources: 1. Statesman Journal, the largest newspaper in the capital of the state. 2. City of Salem. Both sources mention that this gang was the first recorded gang in the capital city. These sources do not give an "idea" that it was the first. These sources flat-out say it was the "first." Reliable sources providing notability. Copy Editor (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not disagree that the sources say the organization in question was "first". I question whether that, ipso facto, is evidence of notability. For the rest, I think WP:CLUB says it best; the subject is certainly not national or international in scale and there is no "information about the organization and its activities" that can be verified by multiple third-party independent reliable sources. We are told that the organization existed by two entirely local sources; we know nothing about its "longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals or other factors specific to the organization". Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a difference between being "famous" and "notable." Just because it wasn't national or international in scale (that is, "famous") doesn't mean that it isn't notable. It seems self-evident that if it is important enough to be mentioned in the largest newspaper in the capital city of the state of Oregon, and on the website about gang prevention by the City of Salem, Oregon, then it is notable. It doesn't matter that the sources are not "famous" either (e.g., "entirely local sources"); what matters is that they are themselves verifiable, trustworthy, notable sources. Copy Editor (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Keep proponent is, perhaps, uninformed about the provisions of WP:GNG. The GNG does indeed require multiple, reliable sources ... which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and which specifically single out one-sentence mentions as "trivial mentions" which do not qualify. Both the sources presented refer to this gang in a single sentence, and then discuss it no further. Ravenswing 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are indeed several references, just perhaps not available immediately via a random Google search. (...." it need not be the main topic of the source material.") Statesman Journal and The Oregonian have references in their databases regarding the period. And I believe it is inappropriate to speculate as to what a fellow editor may or may not be aware of. Copy Editor (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well ... if you were aware of that clause of the GNG, then you blithely ignored it. If you weren't aware of it, then you are advocating the notability of a subject without an understanding of the appropriate guidelines governing notability. That being said, an archival search on both the Statesman Journal and The Oregonian websites for this gang turn up nothing. If you have found references that discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, would you mind citing them, please, presuming their existence is not, well ... speculation? Ravenswing 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction. An archival search does not turn up nothing, because we do have a link to an article by the Statesman Journal. The additional references were made in issues that are not available online at this time, though are available at the local library on microfilm and microfiche. I will include those references as soon as possible. Copy Editor (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... we have a link to an article where the mention of MMP is so trivial, the newspaper didn't see any need to include it in search terms. As far as soon as possible goes, the AfD runs until Wednesday, so I'll be happy to change my vote if good references which meet the GNG appear before then. Ravenswing 19:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. That's sweet of you I'll see what I can do. :) Copy Editor (talk) 20:31, 6 September 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) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable street gang. The Statesman-Journal is indeed a large mainstream newspaper, but the size and public presence of this informal organization is probably comparable to the Willamette University College Republicans, or some such, and the media coverage essentially non-existent. Carrite (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it that you don't know much about the demographics of Oregon, then. This was the first street gang in the history of the state capital. It was made up of low-income people, largely of Latino descent, largely from the poorer towns in the region (Gervais, Woodburn, North Salem), and they were under surveillance by the police department and subject to police investigations. Willamette University, by contrast, is said to be the oldest university west of the Mississippi, is decidedly white, and it is one of the most expensive and exclusive universities in the state of Oregon. There is no comparison whatsoever between these two entities. Your analogy is utterly meaningless. Copy Editor (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your position is utterly irrelevant. The demographics of Oregon form no part of Wikipedia notability criteria. What does is, for one, the GNG, which holds that a subject, to be notable, must have multiple reliable, independent, published sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I never held the position that demographics of Oregon formed a part of Wikipedia notability criteria. I held the position that it is meaningless to form an analogy that in any way likens the first street gang in Salem, Oregon, history to a Republican group at Willamette University. Simply put, it was a bad analogy on the part of the other Wikipedia editor. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Statesman Journal lists another half dozen youth gangs and in fact that articles does not centre around MMP. I would say this gang that has failed to generate any other information aside from mention in this article fails WP:EFFECT and a clearcut case of WP:NOTNEWS. Mkdw ^talk 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There IS other information. Just not online at the moment. Copy Editor (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What makes you say so? Have you seen this other information yourself? If so, why haven't you cited it for the article? If not, then don't claim that information exists when in truth you have no idea. (And that being said, you said a week ago that you were about to include useful references. You're about to run out of time.) Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response What makes me say so? lol. Oh, well ... I just so remember holding in my hands in the late 1980s an actual hard copy newspaper article mentioning this gang. (And, to clarify, it didn't "mention" this gang; the article was ABOUT this gang, as it warranted a full article and picture of the members in the late 1980s, precisely BECAUSE it was the first and was actually scaring people in Salem, Oregon.) Everyone in Salem, Oregon, knew about them. But being that that was in the 1980s, that article isn't available on their website. They were actually covered quite a bit locally. But, again, this was an era that hasn't made it onto the online database of these newspapers yet. As for why I haven't included them in this article yet, well ... I haven't had the time to get down to the library and find those older articles on microfilm. I actually have a life, believe it or not. Thanks. -- Copy Editor (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editor, I understand your argument, but we simply can't base having this article on your witness account with out WP:VERIFIABLE Mkdw ^talk 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Of course, the article will be deleted without prejudice, so if some day you have genuine references supporting the subject's notability, you can always recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that they need to be online and varifiable. I was simply refuting the claim that it received no coverage and that it was akin to the Republican club at Willamette University. If it gets deleted, fine. Just recreate it at some other point (when I have more time to find those older articles). Thanks. Copy Editor (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sounds like a really cool, bad-ass group of guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.255.66 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you care to proffer an argument founded in any way on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Ravenswing 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some sort of requirement that the subject of an article have significant, widespread coverage in reliable sources? I can't remember where it is. But if this gang was just in Salem, how significant is it in a worldwide encyclopedia? Even now, Salem only has a population of 150,000. In the eighties it was half that. How much significance can a gang there and only there that isn't there any more and never grew past there be? Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your analogy, they should delete articles about towns like Starbuck, Washington because, you know, small and insignificant town. But there is some Wikipedia policy that says that there is a difference between being "notable" and "famous." Copy Editor (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, you've been here long enough to know that isn't a proper analogy. Places on the landscape only have to have proof of their existence, not their notability. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There actually is a policy that applies in this situation, WP:CLUB, from which I quote: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." [Emphasis mine.] Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is exactly the policy I was trying to remember.Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's certainly that too. A gang of the caliber of the Blackstone Rangers is notable. A small, ephemeral group in a small city is not. Ravenswing 00:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify: Salem, Oregon may be a "small city," but it is actually the second biggest city in the state of Oregon, AND the capital of the state. Copy Editor (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"........and this non-notable street gang hasn't generated a flea's bite on an ant's buttock of substantial coverage in independently published sources." No books. No coverage in scholarly papers. Not a peep outside a brief mention in the Statesman'. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Eugene and Salem are essentially tied for "second largest city in Oregon" honors at 156,000 each. And the Statesman has no place of dominance in the Willamette Valley, any more than the Eugene Register-Guard. The Oregonian is the state's newspaper of record and they've given no ink whatsoever to this street gang, so far as I'm aware. Carrite (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a 2006 report of Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, Organized Crime in Oregon, detailing the significant street gangs in the state. MMP? No hay nada... Carrite (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of "Oregon Gangs" on NorthwestGangs.com??? You guessed it... Carrite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, it ceased to exist in the early 1990s, so it stands to reason that it wouldn't be included in a report from 2006. And in Salem, Oregon, the Statesman Journal IS the main paper read. People in Salem don't read The Oregonian as much, because -- surprise surprise -- it's about what's going on in Portland. Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CLUB Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all the delete comments above. This so called gang is want-to-bes. But fail criteria of notability and such. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, the city of Salem is wrong when they list them as a gang? And, besides that, it doesn't exist anymore, so how could they be "wannabes"? lol. It would seem the first criterion to be a wannabe would be mere existence. lol Copy Editor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this information be merged to Crime in Oregon or into a "crime" section for Salem, Oregon? 72.74.217.36 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. Neither article is written in the exhaustive depth that would warrant the mention of an ephemeral gang in a small area which doesn't seem to have done much of anything. Heck, there isn't any mention of current gang activity in those articles, which you'd think would be far better documented and far more pressing. Ravenswing 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenet "Small" is subjective. On a national scale, the entire state of Oregon is small. Geographically, it's large. But in terms of population, I think there are less people spread over the entire state of Oregon than crammed into New York City. The word "small" could be used to describe anything in Oregon; and this "small" area to which you refer encompasses, again, the second largest city in the state of Oregon (Salem) -- which is the state capital. And the police department of said city found this gang notable enough to mention them on their own website. Copy Editor (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene is the second largest city in Oregon, not Salem. And unless the gang got a member elected to the house, I cannot see how the fact that Salem is the capital is in any way significant. The mention of the gang on the city's website is just one line and not of any significance. The mention of the gang in the newspaper article cited is also just of a passing nature. If you cannot find a source that even approximates the number of members or this particular gang's impact on the community, you really haven't got an article. Even if you could document those things, since it never affected anyplace other than Metro Salem, I highly doubt even then you would have enough for an article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that, after a period during which Salem was the second most populous city in the state, the population of Eugene recently surpassed the population of Salem -- by all of 2,000 people. But setting that aside, please don't act like you aren't aware that things that take place in the capital city of a state are of significance for the entire state. And the idea that a street gang could have anything to do with getting a member elected to the house is just ridiculous, a really awful analogy. And I can't think of anything that could verify the existence of a gang better than being mentioned on the website maintained by the police in the city in which the gang was based. Copy Editor (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask something? What is the point of all this filibustering, attempting to refute the comments of virtually every editor? If you're trying to argue that we should believe this gang to be important, this isn't the venue for it. If you're trying to argue that the article meets the requirements of the GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB, that was a lost cause a couple weeks back. WP:KEEPCONCISE ... Ravenswing 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could turn that back around and ask you why you are asking me this question. Copy Editor (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criminal gangs are not famous, they are infamous. Infamy begets notoriety, not notability. Example: Nazi Germany. So if you want to state these folks are notoriously infamous, sure, that's ok. But don't call them notable and famous, because that's off target. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case this was addressed to me: I was framing my responses in the context of Wikipedia terminology. To my knowledge, the key word on Wikipedia is "notability" with regard to discussions such as this. Copy Editor (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google and Google News Archives searches for (mmp salem gang) fail to turn up anything relevant beside this article and the two sources cited therein. Subject treated very briefly in sources cited; no evidence of significant coverage. No evidence of coverage outside of Salem area. Delete per failure to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:GEOSCOPE. Ammodramus (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MMP isn't the 18th Street gang. The topic MMP lacks enought reliable sources coverage for a stand-alone article. The main news source, Statesman Journal December 21, 2008, isn't even completely about the MMPs. They are mentioned, but that plus the other references found don't add up to enought content. It seems doubtful there is any more RS information out there on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:13, 21 September 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roberval dos Santos

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

Questionable notability on an unsourced article. Unable to locate reliable sources for the article.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources are readily locatable simply by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination statement, and notability of a world championship medallist is far from questionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for those who speak that language; was/is not readily available for those who speak English so it wasn't that simple to evaluate sources. I placed a {{findsources}} on the talk page but could not find sources that I could evaluate.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a little mystified that the nominator thinks that there is questionable notability when the article notes a bronze medal at an archery world cup event. It's easy enough to verify with his profile at the World Archery Federation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Participation in the World Cup appears to satisfy the criteria of WP:ATH, according to which sports figures are presumed notable if they "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". However, Google News Archives search for ("dos santos" roberval "copa do mundo" arco), intended to catch Portuguese-language sources, turned up only fairly perfunctory coverage (e.g. this passing mention in Globo Sports or two short paragraphs at terra.com.br), so my "keep" !vote must be a weak one. Ammodramus (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Relying on google translate makes searching for sources difficult as I have zero proficiency in Portuguese. This article seems to be rather substantial featuring do Santos prominently. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 20 September 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 Discussion closed. Article already deleted by someone else as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Non-admin closure as "Pure housekeeping, such as ... where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted". Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence (Writer)

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

Non-notable author lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Association of Personnel Services

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

I found only trivial mentions. The national organization that this belongs to has no article as well. SL93 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:ORG, sub units shouldn't have standalone articles unless they are individually notable, and I cannot find any coverage to indicate that it the case. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 6 September 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) 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google News search for ("georgia association of personnel services") yielded only the group's own website. A Google search for the same phrase turned up their own website, lots of LinkedIn pages, and lots of links from cvctracer.com, but nothing that indicated coverage by independent sources. Several of the cvctracer links mentioned the organization's convention, GAPS 2011; a Google search for ("gaps 2011" georgia personnel) turned up no evidence of coverage by independent sources; indeed, the sorting of the Google hits suggests that this group is less notable than the Georgia Animal Protection Society. Fails WP:NRVE. Ammodramus (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underwolf Records

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

Non-notable record company lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. It look as if the artists have gotten some critical notice, but I do not see any coverage for the company.reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Underwolf Records has received coverage in the major international jazz magazine, Jazz & Tzaz, as part of a larger article. In addition, Underwolf's recordings have been featured in very prominent 'best of' lists, and in articles and reviews in important jazz publications such as the leading jazz website All About Jazz, and the New York City Jazz Record among others. The word 'Underwolf' or 'Underwolf Records' appears conspicuously with album cover photos and within the articles in these major publications, further establishing notability for the company of a sort that is not 'inherited' simply by association with notable artists who have received "critical notice". In these cases, the label too has received this notice. Additionally, the company has produced high profile concerts in some of New York City's foremost venues, which have been publicized by publications like Time Out New York among many others, and credited to the record label. This label has the necessary press coverage to be in accordance with Wikipedia's rule that notability requires significant coverage, which is defined by Wikipedia as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" Ant Harness (talk) 16:58, 7 September 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) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ant Harness, while I can appreciate the effort you expended to create the article, the subject simply does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:GNG). There is also a specific criteria for coverage of companies (WP:CORPDEPTH) and I would venture to suggest it doesn't meet those either. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is just no way that Underwolf Records has received significant coverage. Passing mentions, yes. One-off notation, eg."(Underwolf Records)", yes. But these are both a long way from "significant coverage". Most of the sources provided are one-off mentions of the name (sometimes just "Underwolf", without even "Records" after it). A couple don't mention the company at all.

The one source you cite as providing significant coverage (at least for me) couldn't be opened properly and is just a front-cover. Regardless, one solitary source cannot possible be considered "significant coverage" or even "sources" (plural), even if the subject were the focus of one of the articles (though given the company doesn't appear on the front cover, this would have to be queried). The company does not inherit notability from its stable of artists or their recordings. In fact, the guidelines address this specifically - "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs [...] is itself notable". Nor does the company inherit notability from an event it has helped to organise. Sorry, but unless someone can produce some reliable sources that give significant coverage to the organisation itself, it is going to struggle to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ant Harness (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Supplied sourcing represents one-off mentions (frankly, one-word mentions) in articles covering topics that are distinct from the subject. Stalwart makes the salient points regarding corporate notability not necessarily being inherited from having notable products, and that absolutely appears to be the case here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111. The list of references provided are unfortunately, the most trivial of trivial coverage. The vast majority of them are not about the subject at hand, but merely list the company's name in relation to other subjects. This is not signifigant coverage and does not fulfil the notability requirements for companies. Searching for additional searches has come up with nothing new for me. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 13 September 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. JaGa^talk 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innocence of Muslims

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

This film, and more accurately, the part of the film that has received media coverage (a YouTube trailer) do not meet the basic notability requirements for having a dedicated article on the film. Per WP:Notability (films) "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of trivial coverage include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Coverage of this movie so far falls clearly within the "trivial coverage" definition.

Furthermore, it does not meet other specific criteria for notability as set for in WP:Notability (films). To the contrary, it is not "widely distributed" (it has only been screened in its entirety one time!); it has not "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nor is it historically notable, firstly because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and secondly because it does not meet any of the historically notable criteria in the notability guideline which require a time lapse of at least 5 years since the movie's initial release, a major award for excellence, preservation in a national archive or being taught as a subject at a university with a recognized film program. Adequate notations regarding the film can be entered in other articles related to negative views on Islam, attacks on US embassies and the bio of a notable person who was murdered. In short, this movie fails notability in many ways and should be deleted. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AYFKM? There are all kinds of top line references talking about this film. The New York Times is linking to excerpts. Time Entertainment is discussing it. Once obscure but now absolutely notable and worth covering. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Where in the article do you see "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides"? This article is the exact opposite of that. Though Wikipedia:Notability (films) says there should be a five year lapse, WP:GNG doesn't require that, and it would be silly for us to put a five year embargo on creating this article in light of yesterday's events. The crystal ball argument also makes no sense to me, since the film triggered fatal attacks yesterday, and has gotten significant coverage as a result of it, so the impact is in the past, not future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:RS attesting to notability are now global and overwhelming. Qworty (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, after a few days of viewing the trailer, there has been a lot of unrest, and an american embassador killed, as well as 3 other people. I do not think WP:Notability (films) applies here, the issue is not about the film, it is about what that film is stirring up. GastelEtzwane (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The entire world, including the president of the United States in talking about this film and it's repercussions. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician)

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

This stub was deleted in 2006. The individual is no more notable now than then, despite the inclusion of two footnotes. While the two references in the stub do support the matter suggested, neither article is about Harris, and both barely mention him. All the reasons on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Harris_(Pennsylvania_politician) page are still applicable, and the stub should be deleted pursuant to the reasons there as well as the following:

Non-notable individual.

Lack of significant coverage in references.

WP:NOTDIR

WP:NOTWHOSWHO

WP:NOTIINFO 150.212.46.23 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I copied the above nominating statement from User talk:Snowysusan [7]. I refactored it slightly to remove the salutation, but it is otherwise unedited. As the IP has made a good faith effort to nominate the article I will complete the nominating process on behalf the IP. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped the nominating statement to the text from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Harris (Pennsylvania politician) (2nd nomination) as that is the more recent version. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an elected politician, nor an unelected politician of sufficient notoriety or notability to justify an encyclopedic biography. The Mother Jones piece does carry more clout than normal local newspaper coverage, but still not enough, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I might normally recommend merge and redirect to Pennsylvania House of Representatives elections, 2006, however, he was a candidate for one of 203 similar positions within the state (not US Congress) and the article title makes it an unlikely search term. In line with WP:NOT#NEWS, I agree that the Mother Jones article isn't sufficient to establish notability. Location (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and due to past outcomes: we have almost always deleted closing candidates, absent notability beyond that campaign. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 17 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern, des samma mia

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

Delete and merge into Haindling. SarahStierch (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per WP:NSONG. The song itself is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 August 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) 14:53, 5 September 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) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thorns (Takida album)

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

Non-notable demo album. Sigwald (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demos are not considered notable, thus fails WP:MUSIC & WP:GNG and is not a candidate for inclusion. Яεñ99 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 August 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) 14:52, 5 September 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) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for sources and found only a mention at last.fm which appears to be a fan-written wiki page. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this demo; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:24, 18 September 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. Overcome by events. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ball (rugby player)

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

~~fails WP:GNG and WP:NRU Hack (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - now meets WP:NRU Hack (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet NRU. I had a look for sources, but this BBC article was all I could find so I don't think the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 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) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's a professional sportsman, playing at the highest level of his sport. He passes NRU for playing for the Scarlets, who compete in the RaboDirect Pro 12. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an admin can probably close this now - he now meets WP:NRU having made an appearance for Scarlets in the Pro 12 on 15 September. Hack (talk) 03:41, 18 September 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:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Gordon

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

Non-notable artist lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. A few primary references - interviews, but lacks secondary references. Has been nominated for a few local prizes, won one local award, and has had a number of exhibits, but fails WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. Original article resembled a resume. reddogsix (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:CREATIVE . Sources provided are not in depth. I can find info of the same name for someone overseas but not this Victor. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 8 September 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) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadleaf Commerce

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

Missing notability and no references from reliable sources Nsendetzky (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and no reliable sources. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 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) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources in the article are unambiguously unreliable, and the only source I could find (there are several reiterations of the same article in PCWorld, Computerworld UK, Computerworld Singapore – but per WP:GNG they count for one source) is a "Top 10" article with a very brief and blurry description. That said, the subject is a typical software of the genre, so there is nothing to write an article about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not independently notable, might be possible to merge, but not even sure where to.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Primal

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

In-universe description of a fictional character. No secondary sources to indicate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Nothing of any real-world significance. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 9 September 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) 18:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to have no real world information and no sourcing. Not remotely encylopaedic. Eshlare (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary independent sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in third party sources, which makes it impossible to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 September 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 National Assembly for Wales election, 2007#Constituency nominations. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Davies

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

Was a malformed AfD, but I noticed that this seems to fall short of WP:GNG in a large way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Assembly for Wales election, 2007#Constituency nominations which places this person in the conext of the election. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN politician who failed to get elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 17 September 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. There is a consensus that this subject doesn't pass the general notability guideline due to the lack of independence of the sources. There doesn't seem to be agreement on whether the Forbes reference should be regarded as independent or not, but in either case one source alone is not usually considered enough to prove notability. After factoring in the additional concerns about the promotional nature of the article, deletion seems to be the most appropriate course of action. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-4-8 tax blend

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

This appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder. Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it probably was created promotionally and I am not at all convinced a wealth tax doesn't require a constitutional amendment, the article seems balanced, and with about 5,200 verbatim google hits e.g. this mention in Forbes I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion. What specific syntheses are being alleged? —Cupco 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or userfy pending more sources or move to Wikibooks or Wikiversity per below. Unable to find additional reputable sources. —Cupco 03:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read the Forbes item closely, you will note that it is a post written by the founder of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend movement, Eugene Devany. Basically, he commented on a blog post by a Forbes author, and the Forbes author liked the comment enough to allow Devany to post his manifesto on the Forbes blog site. The "5200 verbatim google hits" result largely from the fact that Devany is posting comments to just about every website he can find to talk up this plan. (Check the actual source of the "2-4-8" hit on any of the top google hits to see what I mean.) As for synthesis and original research, the entire article consists of conclusions about the effectiveness of this tax proposal that are based on the author's own research, rather than on any actual independently published facts. One egregious example:
Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll.

While it may be true that this play will result in a 7.5% increase in take home pay for workers, it is a gross leap of faith to assume that this will increase consumer spending enough to cause a growth in jobs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether the Forbes piece qualifies as an interview. In any case, again, I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion in this case. I agree that your example of synthesis constitutes puffery, and suggest that you mark such statements instead of removing the entire article. —Cupco 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Delany wrote the Forbes piece himself, it can't be considered independent coverage. If you can find any independent coverage (i.e. actual news articles written about this proposal, rather than comments written by Delany to other news stories), I would be interested in seeing them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the promotional aspect of this piece also got my backhair up, I also easily found the Forbes piece and that is enough to tip the teeter-totter for me... Needs editing, which is an editing matter... Carrite (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna get out of the way on this one. It's pretty obvious we've got a Single Purpose Editor trying to use WP as a political publicity mechanism, which is something we should avoid as much as we're able. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. After failing in WikiDan61's find-more-than-one-independent-source challenge, I'm considering changing to Userfy or maybe a sister project move. What would this be? Wikiversity? Wikibooks? —Cupco 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment See my comment above in response to Cupco regarding the validity of the Forbes citation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent enough to be kept. Needs editing, so should be tagged, but not removed from the encyclopedia. --Mysterytrey 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A little looking around shows that Forbes piece is the only reliable source citing this plan. All other supposedly reliable sources just turn out to be Eugene Patrick Devany, the Forbes commenter, commenting on news sites in attempt to drum up support for his plan. He's really the only one talking about it. As a side note, the article itself is currently written mostly as an advertizement for the plan. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to make an initial response to your concerns so they might be nipped in the bud. I have numbered the issues as best I understand them.

1. Issue: Promotional Style (not appropriate for an encyclopedia)

1Q. This appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia.

1A. The article was written to share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend with the world (why else would any article be written) but an effort was made not to write in a style that was not argumentative, promotional or sound like an advertisement. The original draft was rewritten to accommodate this concern. If you can identify any remaining language that you consider to be promotional I am reasonably sure that it can be corrected.

2. Vetting of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend (the use of responses and comments to tax articles is unorthodox)

2Q. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder.

2A. A search of "2-4-8 Tax Blend" in Google or Bing will confirm many hits and in 2011-2012 this is a perfectly proper way of vetting a tax plan since it has such an interdisciplinary nature (i.e. law, politics, economics, public administration, accounting, psychology, and even taxation). Indeed, the nature of the topic required an honest promotion in a wide range of publications in order to reach a broad audience and to allow public feedback and criticism. [Some critisim is contained at the official site in the Real Q. & A. page but it was deleated because the Q & A sounded a bit too promotional].

The publications have included: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Business Insider, Hawaii Reporter, Hartford Independent Examiner, The New Republic, Financial Times, The Hill, Vanity Fair, Forbes, CNN, National Journal, Las Cruces Sun News, Dallas News, Reuters, Chicago Headline Club, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, World Magazine, The Fiscal Times, Los Angeles Times, U.S. News, In News Tribune, America, National Catholic Reporter, Politico, The Miami Herald, Slate, CNN World, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Caller, NY Post, Advisor One, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, Governing, FoxNews.com, The Kansas City Star, Bangor Maine Daily News, and TownHall (to name just those articles and responses documented on the official TaxNetWealth.com website).

The official site is also the work product of an Attorney Tax Advocate and it is devoted to the 2-4-8 Tax Blend and does not in any way promote attorney services. Thus the website falls into the catagory of an expert website on a particular issue.

3. Synthesis Category

3Q.Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category.

3A. Wikipeadia has articles on other tax plans and it is not clear how they differ from a “synthesis” perspective. An example or elaboration could be very helpful.

4. Constitutional

4Q. I am not at all convinced a wealth tax doesn't require a constitutional amendment

4A. I happen to be an attorney (with A’s in Con Law) and only the Supreme Court can resolve this issue for sure. There are no cases on point. To say that something might be leaglly uncertain does not seem to be appropriate to the 2-4-8 Tav Blend article. The issue came up in the Wealth Tax talk pages and I supplied outside legal opinion on the subject. Indeed, it came up in a post I made to the NY Times just today. See http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-carried-interest-and-capital-gains/?comments#permid=37

5. Rewrite DONE

5Q. Puffery: Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll

5A. The above sentence was changed and opposing references have been added.

Please disregard any error in Wiki protocol. Thank you, 248TaxBlend (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author claims that the article was written to "share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend plan with the world", going on to note "why else would any article be written". The author should acquaint himself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Most Wikipedia articles are written not to share one's great ideas with the world, but to report on ideas that have already been proven great (well, at least notable). Using Wikipedia to share one's own great idea is the exact practice that Wikipeida's original research policy is intended to prevent. The author is confused about what part of this article constitutes original research. I will answer that in one sentence: the part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes. Since the tax plan has not been reviewed in any major economics journal or text, we have only the author's own word for this conclusion -- this is the very definition of original research. The author goes on to claim that posting comments on many different news sites is a perfectly legitimate means of "vetting" his tax plan. That may well be. But it still constitutes a primary source. Wikipedia is not a place for this user to vet his tax plan, or to get the word out. Wikipedia is a place to report on issues that have already been vetted and whose word is already out. I am not at all concerned with whether the plan is constitutional or not -- that is an issue for legal scholars, not Wikipedians. The issue here is whether the plan is a notable event in the financial history of this country, or one man's manifesto that has been well publicized by that one man. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I first wish to thank WikiDan61 and Cupco for the comments about Job Creation and the Payroll Tax. I believe the rewording of the last sentence and the addition of two new references have eliminated any potential “puffery” , made the conclusion more factual and neutral, and referenced a difference of opinion on the subject. Judging from the comments immediately above it no longer appears to be an issue and, most importantly, the article has been improved.

At the suggestion above I have also reread the Wiki Conflict of Interest guidelines and I am certain that there is no conflict of interest with my participation in writing the article. I have no financial, autobiographical, campaigning or legal interest. The section about citing oneself notes, “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. : My name as author is used only twice in regard to the original 2005 submission to the President’s Tax Panel and again in the Forbes article that challenged me to make a case for a wealth tax in the U.S. This certainly falls within the policy guidelines particularly since the Forbes article was referenced but not quoted. The “make a case” style of the Forbes article is not appropriate to the writing style of Wikipedia even if the facts in the article could be presented in a neutral style.

On the issue of the Notability requirement the Wiki guide notes, “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines …:” In this regard notability needs to be viewed in the context of tax reform and wealth taxation and tax blends. As far as I can tell Wikepedia has a reference to 12 tax reforms including the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. The first 7 have historical interest and only the last five are plans occasional in the news or discussed in the blogosphere.

• Automated payment transaction tax

• Efficient Taxation of Income

• Hall–Rabushka flat tax

• Kemp Commission

• Taxpayer Choice Act

• USA Tax

• 9–9–9

• 2-4-8 tax blend

• Competitive Tax Plan

• FairTax

• Flat tax

• Value Added Tax

The elimination of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would leave a great void in what many consider as the most important issue of our generation. It is the only viable plan that includes a wealth tax. While this aspect goes to the merits and public acceptance of the plan but not to whether the article is a notable contribution. Indeed the Wiki editors (apparently from the taxation project) rated the article as involving a subject of more than minor importance and good quality. It is clear that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is the most notable tax plan to include a net wealth tax and that feature makes it very unpopular in certain circles. During the Republican convention Grover Norquist attended an affair where he said “I’m not French. I’m not bragging. I’m just telling the truth.” The “joke” came after I had written several pieces indicating that Mr. Romney lived in France, was familiar with a tax blend and his closest supporters had urged the adoption of a VAT and wealth tax. I had also previously written dozens of comments indicating that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend does not violate the no-tax pledge. This political discussion is well beyond the scope of a Wiki article but is highlights why some people have a bias and why the plan is very controversial to some.

The use of the phrases, “share one's great ideas with the world” and “one man's manifesto” suggest a strong bias on the part of the editor. The strengths and weaknesses of the tax plan stand on their own and it does not matter who had the rather simple idea (or how many additional years it took to realize that the plan might be more useful than originally thought). The word manifesto (used by the editor) means a written public declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer ... and there is nothing in the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article which indicates anything other than the plan may be a better way to tax and help the economy. It is not about the personal motives or politics of the author [which are not disclosed]. It is also difficult to understand the claim that the article contains a, “part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes”. I have reread the article and no where does the author vouch for the plan. Indeed, the simple 2-4-8 elements are outlined, the economic issues are discussed with independent references and the reader is left to consider the reasonableness of the facts presented.

I need to also add that the heading “Goals” was added by another editor and the submitted article had this paragraph merely as a continuation of the earlier table. The paragraph introduced economic issues that would be affected: investment, jobs, fairness/deferral/tax avoidance and wealth distribution. The original author did not say that changing these issues was a “goal” of the plan. The use of the heading Goal makes it sound as if the author had a political or social agenda and set out to design a tax plan to accomplish it. This is false. Indeed the enormous wealth distribution and the trillions in tax deferrals (at least at the corporate level) did not exist when the plan was proposed. The plan was also proposed years before there was a housing bubble, a recession or high rates of unemployment. Thus the items listed really could not have been a foreseeable “goals” of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. It is more fair to consider that the plan was initially proposed for reasons of general fairness and efficiency and that the subsequent economic crisis has created or aggravated issues which the plan would directly affect – perhaps in positive ways.

248TaxBlend (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm all for assuming good faith but this is really a bit silly. Beyond the obvious conflict of interest editing (which the user in question should note is always strongly discouraged), a good number of the sources are clearly self-published by the editor in question, who created both the subject tax plan and the article. Given the cross referencing between the two, one can only conclude that a significant portion of the material in the article is a blatant combination of original research and self-promotion by an WP:SPA. The suggestion that TaxNetWealth.com "falls into the catagory (sic) of an expert website on a particular issue" and so should be considered an independent reliable source is patently false. It is owned and copyrighted by the person who wrote the article in question. It is certainly not independent of the subject. Of the "news" coverage sources some are broken links and others don't mention 2-4-8 tax blend in any way at all. The final suggestion - that depriving WP of an article about his tax plan would "leave a great void" because it is the "the only viable plan" - says it all really. Almost a contender for Speedy Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Editors should be aware of context and understand that context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable. Simply citing a rigid policy for the purposes of ending an argument doesn't feel like a particularly fulfilling way of making your point and there's a reason - it's not. All things have context and without context, value is diminished." is from User:Stalwart111/Notability in context by Stalwart111 above. He has a healthy interest is in the middle age church (and looking for help) and perhaps on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin (a “notable” philosophical interest of the time).

This is mentioned to acknowledge how difficult it is not just to apply the wiki “dogma” but also to formulate it as one comes across a palpably notable subject that is on the fringe of interdisciplinary fields and has evolved in an unorthodox manner. :248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you actually suggesting that because I have an interest in 17th century Church history that all my comments relating to (entirely unrelated) Wikipedia content should be viewed in that context? As insults go, that's not a very clever one. In fact, it has to be one of the silliest things I've read for a very long time. That essay (which is a user essay - an opinion) was almost entirely about geographic context eg. the fact that there are fewer newspapers in Africa should not make all subjects in Africa automatically less notable because there is generally less "coverage". The concerns in the second half of the essay have since been recognised by the wider Wikipedia community and new (more contextual) guidelines for association football are now in place to differentiate between different "professional" leagues in different countries. Suggesting either of those concepts apply here and quoting it out of context is laughably ironic. You have still done nothing to demonstrate the notability of this subject beyond giving your opinion (again) that it should be afforded some special treatment because you have personally deemed it to be special and worthy of special treatment. Wikipedia's guidelines have been established over a very long period of time and have been tested many times over in relation to theories "on the fringe" and concepts ahead of their time. They can be changed, and there are processes in place to allow them to change. You are free to join any of the myriad conversations about whether they should change and how. But this conversation is about this article and whether or not it currently meets current guidelines. Feel free to present evidence (rather than more personal opinion or half-baked insults). Stalwart111 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not anticipate that anyone, including Stalwart111, would take my words as an "insult". The style may have been overly cute by playing off the 17th Century Church and wiki "dogma". I think I spent too many years in the minor seminary and that is "laughably ironic". I apologise and wish to indicate that the sentence quoted makes sense to me because "context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable". This thought certainly has application beyond the 17th century and beyond Aftican geography or sports. I also agree that my humble opinion on notability, standing alone, would not be sufficient 248TaxBlend (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It is difficult to have these conversations between very uninvolved editors (who may not have ever come in contact with detailed tax theory generally, let alone this particular one) and very involved editors, especially where a conflict of interest is involved. An assertion of policy from one side can often be viewed as a personal insult by the other because the topic is "near and dear" to them. I understand it must be hard to believe in something passionately only to have a community of people (who might quite rightly be described as as "less knowledgeable" of the topic) tell you your idea is "not notable". Please understand they do not mean you are less worthwhile or your ideas are less valid than others. They are part of a community that has developed very detailed (and perhaps strict) rules to ensure an encyclopaedic resource does not become bogged down with every thought anyone ever had. For that we have Twitter and Facebook. To differentiate between mere tweets and a Wikipedia entry, the community have put in place certain standards and your article is being judged against those. I actually think your work might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and approaching it on that basis might be worthwhile. Do some work away from Wikipedia to get your ideas noticed, continue to talk to papers, continue to promote your theory and build coverage of it. A few well-written articles by serious journalists or academics would probably push this article over the line. Then come back (perhaps get someone to do the actually writing to avoid further conflict of interest accusations) and give it another crack. At the moment the subject is at the point where people can argue about the article's merits, so they will. Do some work offline and put it beyond doubt. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your idea - it's the place to record its encyclopaedic merit once is had found its place in history. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I believe that to apply any test fairly you must first separate the message from the messenger, or in this case, the author of the article from the content. The 2-4-8 Tax Blend was essentially described in one sentence in 2005 but the Panel’s decision to limit the scope of potential tax reform rendered it inapplicable to the panel’s narrowed purposes. Now imagine that a Great recession follows and prolonged unemployment and a Mr. Jones, Esq. realizes that the tax blend first described by a Mrs. Smith in 2005 has potential utility. Mr. Jones proceeds to solicit feedback in the blogosphere until the top publication for tax reform, Forbes, (through an attorney-CPA columnist) invites Mr. Jones to explain why and how a wealth tax could be feasible in the U.S. (and implemented in a revenue neutral manner). Keep in mind that Steve Forbes wrote the seminal “The Flat Tax Revolution: Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS” (2005) and that Forbes Magazine is renowned for focusing on wealth and the tax strategies of the wealthy. After Mr. Jones publishes the article, “Creating New Wealth by Taxing Net Wealth” comment come in but to the great surprise of the Forbes editors (and Mr. Jones) none of the comments identify a legal, logical or economic reason why the significant claims in the article would not work. The idea has been vetted in an appropriate publication of record with an expected audience of interest in the particular subject matter. Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan (-“you be the judge”). The editors at Forbes are reputable in the subject of tax reform and some deference should be given to their obvious judgment about what is notable.

Getting back to the fact that Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones did not write anything compels a fair look at the actual words of the article and not on who wrote it or why. If there is no bias in the words the article should stand. Indeed, the greatness of Wiki comes from the ability of editors to change and improve articles even to the point where the language of any editor, including the original, is left on the cutting room floor.

248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment section of a blog (even a reputable blog published by Forbes) does not constitute "vetting in an appropriate publication of record". If the author of this tax proposal wishes to vet the idea in an appropriate publication of record, he should submit it to one of the variously peer-reviewed economics journals. Or even manage to get the idea published in the actual print edition of one of the major financial publications (as an actual article, not as a letter to the editor). The problem with this article isn't that the ideas is invalid (heck, it sounds like a great idea to me), but that the idea is original research, and Wikipedia doesn't allow that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article could probably written on the subject, but this is too promotional to be acceptable. It would be too difficult to rescue, because the promotional parts are interwoven throughout the description. the only way to do this would be to start over. Even the defense of the article above is promotional: "Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan". Challenging the reader to consider a plan is not encyclopedic writing, but advocacy. "The elimination of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would leave a great void in what many consider as the most important issue of our generation." This is a defense of the importance of the advocacy, which is a plain admission that it is advocacy. The claim is made that the comments in Forbes prove not just the notability , but the merit of the plan, & that this is a reason to accept the article. It may be a reason to accept the plan, but it is a reason to reject the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reread the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines which indicate that while primary sources are to be generally avoided, “primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.” In the case of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend the original 2005 submission to the President’s Panel on Tax Reform is a reliable publication within the meaning of the primary source rule. The rest of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article relies only upon facts and opinions from secondary sources which are well referenced. It is significant that even the Forbes article is listed as a generak reference (primarily for the notoriety requirement) and not cited in or relied upon in the body of the wiki article. The introduction to the Forbes article by Mr. Reilly also serves as a secondary source in regard to the recognition of the 2-4-8 Tax blend as a potential feasible use of a wealth tax blend in the U.S. The Forbes introduction reads, “Mr. Devany told me about his 2-4-8 plan in a comment on another post. I challenged him to make a case that a wealth tax … is actually feasible.” It is significant that Mr. Reilly knew about the details of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend, invited the submission of a article in Forbes (cf. not a "letter to the editor") with a specific sub-topic regarding the potential use of a wealth tax in the U.S. and upon reading the draft Mr. Reily wrote an introduction relating the wealth tax issue to Mr. Buffet and Forbes obviously determined that the article was appropriate to publish. The suggestion in the comment above that a print version of the magazine or only and economics journal with a peer review would meet the wiki notoriety standard reflects a misconception of how tax reform plans originate and what they mean. [For example, the “x-tax plan” was drafted by an attorney and first published in a magazine not significantly different from the Forbes publication here. Those that analyzed and wrote about it relied upon the article used for general publication]. It is also important to keep in mind that the original research rule is intended to prohibit argument not based upon secondary sources and not to discourage new and noteworthy topics. A primary source is not misused when all of the points and arguments that comprise the article are from reliable secondary sources and the topics covered are standard for the basic subject in issue.

It is not very helpful to comment that an article is “too promotional to be acceptable” and fail to identify even a single line that reads in a promotional style and to further proceed to opine that the article is “too difficult to rescue”. Perhaps DGG never actually read the wiki article because he writes,

“the article above is promotional: "Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan". Challenging the reader to consider a plan is not encyclopedic writing, but advocacy.”

The "claimed objectionable” introduction was to the Forbes article and not to the Wiki article at all. I implore DGG to read the wiki article and to reconsider his opinion if it has been made in error (or at least to point out what is promotional). I know DGG has a, “dislike for deciding matters by technicalities rather than by merits … not hidebound, definitions of ‘sources’ and ‘notability’ appropriate to the way people communicate in the 21st century” See DGG, Biases section.

248TaxBlend (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with quoting that part of that guideline is that the very next sentence is, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So yes, you can cite your primary sources, but your interpretation of them is still original research. Someone else (a reliable, independent source) must have interpreted them that way, and the combination can then be used as a reference.

Anything that makes any claim (promotional or derogatory) must be referenced. Any portion that makes a claim about the benefit of the idea must be sourced. There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source. That is all promotional because it is your opinion of the benefits of the idea which have not been backed-up by others. If it does not have a source then it is original research. That is the benefit of having independent media provide coverage of the idea - once they have made the same claims, we can cite that material and repeat the claim in the article. If I were to remove all of the unreferenced material from that article now, there would be almost nothing left. That's the problem. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that while it is not always the case, it is often the case that articles created by those with a very clear conflict of interest fail to meet WP:GNG. The argument goes that if the subject was notable enough (per Wikipedia guidelines), one of the many regular Wikipedia contributors would have taken the subject to WP:AFC or would have created it of their own volition. If it appears regularly in the news, in scholarly articles or is regularly referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia (caveat: WP:WINARS), it should (in theory) come to the attention of contributors and an article will be created for it. If there is so little coverage of a subject that it takes someone very close to it to create an article, it is likely too soon for that article, or the subject simply doesn't meet guidelines to the extent that it should have an article. It is one of the reasons why COI editing is strongly discouraged. There are always exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI hope you guys and gals are enjoying this. I [name should be changed from 248TaxBlend to EugenePatrickDevany] wish to thank Stalwart111 for his further comments above because they have opened my eyes to the way two or more people can look at the same words and perceive entirely different things. The comment states, “There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source.” I do not know if this is a statement of fact or opinion, or if it was influenced by the title “Goals” which is a false and inaccurate title added by another editor (see second comment under name 248TaxB;end, last paragraph). The four issues discussed are standard items one would consider of any tax reform plan but they are not “benefits” - unless the reader has a predisposition to a desired effect or outcome that the tax plan should produce.

The first WP issue relates to behavioral economics and how the tax change alters incentives and creates what the author describes as a “carrot and stick” effect from the interplay between the wealth tax, the lower income tax rate and the elimination of the capital gains tax. If the reader is predisposed to accept government’s use of negative reinforces (the threat of punishment by the government, the nanny state, etc.) the reader may judge the combined incentives to be beneficial. If the reader is predisposed to think that the government should avoid using non-essential penalties in the tax code (as some believe about the new health care requirement) than the combined incentives will not be viewed as “benefits” to the reader. The reader will judge the added coercion of the tax code as not being beneficial. The discussion presents the facts but leaves the issue of if or how beneficial the new incentives would be to the reader.
The second WP issue relates to job creation and one might expect all readers to find job creation as beneficial. However the analysis flows from the proposed elimination of all payroll taxes and the number of new jobs that can be expected is not certain. More importantly, those who like the current Social Security funding system and its 80 years of history will not find a new tax base to be beneficial. Those who feel that workers should pay more in taxes will not find this beneficial. The facts are presented to the reader without going off on a tangent speculating about which reader may support the payroll tax system. Indeed, there are no doubt some who would oppose any reduction in business tax rates under any circumstances. The point of the issue is that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would encourage "some" job creation and not that it is beneficial to do so in this particular manner.
The third WP issue relates to tax deferral and tax avoidance, and elaborates how the 2-4-8 Tax Plan would put an end to this. It does this primarily by replacing the capital gains tax with a net wealth tax that is the equivalent of taxing imputed income from the investment of all types of assets (whether or not they have been invested). To say that this is a “benefit” clearly reflects little more than the judgment of the reader. Congress, in its wisdom, has crafted a tax code that contains deferrals (and reduced rates) for capital gains which have been justified by any number of public policy reasons (well beyond the scope of the article). It is sufficient that the article explains the rules of how the tax deferrals would end and leave it to the reader to decide if this is beneficial.
The last WP issue is wealth redistribution (and here again it is important to note that some other editor added the word “Alleviate” to the original title of “Wealth Redistribution”). This title change gives an impression that the author of the WP article has an agenda apart from explaining how wealth has been redistributed by the current tax code and how the 2-4-8 Tax Blend will alter that effect. The block quote from the 2005 Final Report makes it clear that the distributional effects of the tax code are a matter for Congress to determine and by implication that good people from both sides of the political spectrum, may in good conscience, let it stand. The WP article indicates that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would change the distribution of income and wealth but does not conclude that the change would be more or less beneficial than that which Congress has put in place. The facts presented include a table which speaks for itself and a short discussion of the uncertain relation between the income and wealth gap and recession (or depression as Mr. Krugman likes to call it). The reader may examine the facts and come to his or her own conclusion about whether the kind of redistribution of wealth than can be expected from the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is or is not beneficial across the range of taxpayers.

I believe the subjective views of some editors could be unintentionally (and maybe unconsciously) clouding their judgment on not only the promotion issue (via subjective interpretation of what is a “benefit” vs. simply an “effect” of the plan) but also on the original research issue (via the assumption that data has been “interpreted” as opposed to simply being “expressed” and “presented”). It is important to understand that a tax plan may have simple components such as 2-4-8 and more complex effects on one or more economic issues. While there is no fixed limit to how data might be mathematically modeled, analyzed and projected it is also possible to present the components and use firmly established (static) data from standard tables, etc. and explanatory articles on the particular subject matter. An explanation of basic economic issues through secondary sources is not an “interpretation”.

To say the Supreme Court now recognizes that a penalty in the tax code may be used to coerce desired behavior is not an “interpretation” it is a fact. To say that a net wealth tax operates in a similar way is simply using a well known example to explain how the net wealth tax component works, and is not an “interpretation” or elaboration in the sense of A plus B will lead to C. It is a simply fact that tax provisions A and B share negative reinforcement characteristics. No “interpretation” is involved. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
To say that lower taxes on business and more take home pay will effect job creation is not an “interpretation” it is simply an explanation that there is some effect between payroll tax elimination (reduction) and job creation. One reference gives an estimate of payroll tax rate changes and numbers of new jobs and other (footnote) references indicate that there is uncertainty and disagreement by experts as to the number of jobs that might be expected. There is no attempt to “interpret” the opinions to say one opinion is more reliable than the other or “interpret” the data to project something ridiculous like, “12,000,000 jobs will likely be created within two weeks of the election”. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
To say that tax deferral will end as a result of replacing the capital gains tax with a wealth tax is a simple fact. A footnote also discusses corporate tax deferral. To describe the importance of this change to the investment community with an illustration of the well known (and well referenced) finances of Warren Buffet is not an “interpretation” of anything. It is simply using a very good example to explain and contrast the issue in the context of the current tax code. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
To say that the income and wealth redistribution from the current tax code would end is also a simple logical fact. The use of table data to accurately show how the wealth distribution has changed since 1995 is a fact needed to quantify the issue in the context of the current tax code and is not an “interpretation”. The use of secondary sources to show that there “may” be a causal relation between recession and the income/wealth gap is not an “interpretation” and simply presents the opinion of others to convey the potential importance of the issue. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.

One editor’s “promotion” is another’s “clear explanation and expression”.
One editor’s “notable” is another’s “so what” (until it becomes a "Well, whaddya know?")
One editor’s “benefit” is another’s “I didn’t, or don’t, think of it that way because … .”
One editor’s “original research” is another’s “What research? I didn’t do any research! I just know the basics that have been discussed for years in the literature (and the news).”
One editor’s “interpretation” is another’s “He is just a smarty pants because I never would have thought of that.”

EugenePatrickDevany 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Mate, I think you have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter if you refer to them as benefits, effects, outcomes or results - the claims your make in the article need to be verified by sources and the claims in this article are not. Not just a little bit unsourced but a whole lot unsourced. It doesn't matter if the claims are positive (like claiming a "plan" will save all citizens thousands of dollars) or negative (like claiming a "plan" will ruin 4 of the 5 largest cities in the US) or completely neutral (like claiming the plan was first published on a particular date) - all claims must be verified. Your self-determined comparisons between "one editor's... is another editor's..." are way off the mark. As far as Wikipedia is concerned none of those personal opinions are relevant and in all cases there are very clear guidelines to determine what is and isn't appropriate. All you are doing is disregarding guidelines, spamming this AfD with yet more of your personal opinion and hoping people will get so bored reading your pages and pages of WP:OR opinionated drivel and that they'll just give in. Rather than just posting more and more of your nonsensical essays on how you would interpret guidelines if you had the chance or how you would amend guidelines to give your essays special consideration, how about you spend some time away from this AfD seeing if you can find even ONE piece of in-depth coverage from an independent reliable source? I think I've tried to be as nice as humanly possible - far nicer than most would be in the face of such ridiculous nonsense. But this is just getting silly. To begin with, and without posting another 5000 bytes of useless, opinionated cruft to go along with it, please post links to three independent, reliable sources that mention this subject ("2-4-8 tax blend") specifically and give it significant coverage. If you can then I'll shut up and leave this AfD alone. Go... (Stalwart111 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

1. (paste link here)

2. (Paste link here)

3. (Paste link here)

Comment - I am pleased this “Mate” is making progress by apparently moving away from the article content objections (none of which are valid) and focusing his continued objection on his personal opinion that “three independent, reliable sources“ are required by WP; and that an invitation to write a highly specialized tax reform article for Forbes (and the submission to the President’s Panel, and the hundreds of comments vetting the plan in the blogosphere and the official website [with thousands of hits]) does not meet the WP “notoriety” pre-condition. EugenePatrickDevany 14:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Comment - I am displeased that Mr Devaney refuses to understand the Wikipedia policies involved here, and is somehow deluded into thinking that his own blog posting on Forbes constitutes an independent source, or that his own comments on every forum or news site that he can find constitute "notoriety" (his word, not mine), or that posting a comment at an open forum of the US government (at which any person could post any comment) constitutes a "submission to the President's Panel". Mr. Devaney, the notability of your plan is not in any way bolstered by your practice of spamming every site you can find with this proposal. It can only be indicated by other, independent writers choosing to look at your plan and write their own articles about it. Since not one single independent article can be found about this plan, it appears not to be notable. Whether or not the plan is viable, or reasonable, or legal is not the issue here. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about pie-in-the-sky ideas that never went anywhere, but they were well-covered in independent media. This plan has not been well-covered, and so deserves no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WikiDan may be “displeased” because his application to nominate the article for deletion does not meet his particular understanding for a “well-covered” requirement as part of the notability pre-condition. His use of words and phrases like, “refuses to understand”, “deluded”, “spamming” and “pie-in-the-sky” reveal his personal opinions about the article content and its author. The language and argument does not really advance the notability issue debate or how it was (or was not) met by the interaction with the editorial staff of Forbes and their invitation to write and decision to publish. It may be worth considering that Forbes is the premiere publication of its type and an article on the subject of comprehensive tax reform is quite rare (because of its legal complexity an potential to make the publishers look foolish for printing it, if there is a legal or logical flaw). Few publishers are willing to take the risk. EugenePatrickDevany 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Seriously? It's a nomination, not an application, and you can nominate anything you like and the community then has a chance to reach a consensus about whether the article should remain on Wikipedia or not. There are very clear guidelines for what should and shouldn't be included. Often, there is conjecture about how many sources an article needs or whether or not the sources in question are appropriate or whether they meet guidelines. In this case, you have offered up no independent, reliable sources to verify notability. Instead you have offered us more and more and more of your personal opinion and original research. We have given you the opportunity to list the sources on which you built your article (another purpose of the AfD process) and you have refused. You need to understand (and it is at the bottom of every article editing window, just to make sure) that there is a burden of proof with which all editors are expected to comply. By rights, any of the editors who came across your "article" could have simply removed the vast majority of the content and almost every single claimed "source" on the basis it completely failed the burden of proof and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The article would have been nominated for speedy deletion and wouldn't exist. Instead, WikiDan61 brought it here to give you (and others) the chance to demonstrate how it meets guidelines and to build a community consensus one way or the other. Rather than read the relevant policies, undertake additional research and make a reasoned contribution to this discussion, you have simply determined that anyone who doesn't agree with your OR theories is wrong and should be drowned out with pages and pages of nonsensical drivel. In the interests of good faith (but against my better judgement) I'm going to give you a chance to provide sources for your article. If you can't, or you refuse, or you refuse to focus on content, I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be happy to identify or add a source for each "specific content claim" you identify as being "un-sourced". Simply copy the phrase(s) or sentence(s) and let me know. Thank you. EugenePatrickDevany 03:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Great! How about the very first sentence in the very first paragraph about what the 2-4-8 tax blend is? Given that a source created and maintained by the creator of the subject is obviously not an independent reliable source (IRS) for that subject, let's have an IRS for that - someone who has summarised what the plan does, other than you. Just the basics, nothing complicated. An independent source giving an introduction of what the plan does.

Let's also have a source for Section 1 - Tax Changes - at the moment it has a link back to your website and some original research notes, but no sources. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who has given a detailed account of the changes that will result from the implementation of the plan.

Let's maybe have a source for any of the claims in Section 2 - Anticipated Economic Changes From the 2-4-8 Tax Blend that actually give coverage of these concepts in relation to the subject - this particular plan. Some of the generic claims are "sourced" but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded and un-sourced. The whole section is a list of unrelated claims (some sourced) which have been SYNTH'd together to make it look like the sources support the claims relating to this subject. They do not, and except for your self-published material, none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who can link your specific idea to any of the broader tax ideas in that paragraph.

Lets have a source for any of the suggestions in Section 3 - Administration, valuation and digital filing. At the moment there is one "source" for 7 whole paragraphs of original research and that "source" is your own website. That is not a reliable, independent source for this subject. Let's have one for each of those that actually relates to 2-4-8 specifically, from someone independent.

Let's start with those. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

In response to the unwarranted editorial intention of the editor who said, “I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof.” I invite consideration of the following:

Response 1: The introduction contains seven references and describes what the plan is and not what it does. Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is. The Scoring Outline is referenced as the definitive guide to the proposed tax reform elements. A primary and unique aspect of the plan comes from its blend of three tax bases which is consistent with the definition of income and permitted measures of taxation described by tax law professors: Shakow, David and Shuldiner, Reed, “Symposium on Wealth Taxes Part II, New York University School of Law Tax Law Review, 53 Tax L. Rev. 499, Summer, 2000. There is no bias or inaccuracy in the introduction and no other “independent source giving an introduction of what the plan” is has been identified.

Response 2 This paragraph is a transition from the specific individual and corporate tax law changes and revenue estimates above to the four economic issues discussed below. There is no claim that other economic issues are not affected. The issues selected for discussion are fundamental and basic to tax reform and each is supported by independent sources as is discussed more fully below.

Response 3: The suggestion that, “the generic claims are ‘sourced’ but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded” is not sufficiently specific to formulate a response. In good faith a request had been made to copy the phrase or sentence that contains a claim that is un-sourced but this editor has declined to do so. The generic claim that, “none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea” is more likely do to the reader’s lack of familiarity with tax law and tax philosophy than with the specific content or expression. This tax reform article is not intended as a primer in the complex subject of U.S. Tax Law although numerous links to WP pages are provided for that purpose.

Response 4: See Response 3.

Response 5: See Response 3.

Response 6: This entire section relates to the administrative details of the 2-4-8 Tax Plan as taken directly from the official site. It relates to secondary issues of interest to tax reform advocates rather than to the broader economic issues discussed above. The topic is separated to avoid further complicating the main issues. The section contains no interpretation or analysis and, by its nature, has no source apart from the official website.

EugenePatrickDevany 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

(I removed the sections of your response which were just cut-and-paste repeats of my comments - other editors can see what you are responding to above.)

So in summary - "No" - not one single source that gives significant coverage to the subject specifically that could be considered independent or reliable. Exactly as I suggested and exactly as I expected. Your claim, "Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is" makes my point for me and is, in effect, an admission the article does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. You've pretty much said all that needs to be said. I'm done. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set in an unnamed city

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

Trivial association (or really, a lack of one.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A deliberately anonymous setting for artistic reasons seems to be a reasonable list criterion. However, this seriously cries out for references. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To meet WP:L and hence keep, we'd require evidence that being set in an unknown city creates a distinctive class of films that are considered as forming a group by film writers, academics, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And that seems impossible, because there can be opposite reasons for it: because the city is meant to be recognized as a real one (while maintaining a sort of deniability), or because the city is meant to be generic. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I cannot seem to find any references discussing this topic on a high level. I understand the gist of the topic, but without supporting references, this to me is a list based on a neologism. In particular, this passage stands out, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." I can see how there is value in applying anonymity to fictional works in different regards -- places, people, things, etc. We need to verify such a topic with secondary sources, and I'm not able to find anything for this. As a result, I also have to cite WP:NOTDIR in how these items are only loosely associated without any overarching verifiable coverage. The loose association is also reflected in the intentionality being in-universe or out-of-universe. I'm happy to reconsider if we can find useful references. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this would work better as a category. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Erik said, there do not seem to be any sources that discuss this concept on any substantial level that would show that this list is actually a notable collection, and not just random trivia. Additionally, there are no sources for any of the information contained within the list for each entry, which makes me suspect that there was quite a bit of Original Research going on. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's hard to verify the absence of something. Would we take a list of every film ever made, then subtract out all the movies that take place in named cities (New York, L.A. etc.), and then paste the result here? This list is far too indiscriminate and subjective to ever create an encyclopedic list. And even then, no one has proven that the topic of the list is notable as required under WP:LISTN, because there isn't substantial coverage on the use of unnamed cities in film. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:11, 19 September 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. Though I am closing this as "keep", that does not preclude editors discussing the possibility of a page move or a merge with another article (e.g. Street child) on the relevant talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street children in Eastern Europe

Street children in Eastern Europe (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 no-subject article to be deleted

Few questions for a start of deletion process:

What exactly is Eastern Europe in the sense of this pseudoarticle?
Who exactly are "Street children"?
What is that so common to the "Street children in Eastern Europe" which warrants a separate article on them (instead of country-specific articles)?
How exactly do "Street children in Eastern Europe" differ that much from "Street children" in Central Africa and northern Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.72.233.80 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The above IP editor tagged the article for AfD and I copied the above nomination from the article talk page, refactoring the header. I am now listing it in the daily log. Monty₈₄₅ 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your help.93.72.233.80 (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject that can be easily sourced. @93.72.233.80. Yes, there are such things as Eastern Europe and Street children. Many countries in Eastern Europe have similar problems (such as this one) due to common history. There is nothing wrong with creating articles like Street children in Africa or Street children in Australia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just bother going and actually reading the articles you linked to). European Union might also be great educating reading for you. Also note that the "article" in question describes both homeless and non-cared children (Russian in particular) - not specifying if they are all "street children" and why. Not the kind of integrity you'd expect from Wikipedia.93.72.233.80 (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge some content into RELEVANT country-specific articles. After purging of Cpt. Obvious' reports like "Street children in Russia often miss out on proper education due to the difficulties of living on the streets.", of course) 93.72.233.80 (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:My very best wishes. It could be turned into a real article. Incubate? Bearian (talk) 20:37, 17 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FitnessX Magazine

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

May not meet [[WP:GNG]. Wylve (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources to establish verification from third-party sources or notability, this is probably due to the fact that the company launched only a year ago. This may be another cause of Wikipedia:TOOSOON. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article creation WP:TOOSOON, does not meet WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus that the Joe Shuster Awards automatically confer notability, and no other indication that the subject passes WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Manga

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:WEB, all sources are primary, no secondary sourcing found. Having another webcomic's creator praise you does not equal notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm doing a bit of a search on the Joe Shuster Award and I'm not seeing where this is so tremendously notable that winning one would keep the article on that merit alone. It does somewhat extend notability but I'm not seeing where it's tremendously notable. As far as webcomic creators go, Fred Gallagher is pretty notable in the webcomic world and is one of the very, very few people I'd consider to be notable enough to have a blog count towards notability. I'll see what I can do for the article, but offhand this needs pretty much an almost complete rewrite in many sections. It reads like a fan page rather than an encyclopedic entry. It's pretty puffy in places.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked a good deal of the article, as it was pretty non-neutral. I also removed the webcomic info boxes because the info could be best represented in the individual sections and the sections themselves were pretty slim after having the fan content removed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note is that the compilation of Paper Eleven seems to have been self-published. I state this because I know at one point having your webcomics published in paper format was something that gave automatic notability. I don't think this is still the standard, but I wanted to voice that this was self-published through Lulu.04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete. I looked for sources but was ultimately unable to find enough to show that either the artist or the website has enough notability to pass WP:GNG. In the end all we have is an endorsement by Fred Gallagher and the Joe Shuster Awards. Neither one is enough in and of themselves notable enough to keep the article based upon that alone. They both count towards notability but they're not enough to be so overwhelmingly notable that I'd say "absolute keep", and by this I mean specifically the awards. They're not non-descript awards but I don't really see where they're considered to be along the lines of an Eisner Award, for example. They give notability but not Notability, if that makes any sense. That being said, if someone could find a few more sources to show notability I'd be willing to change my vote, but offhand I couldn't really find where this webcomic is being covered in multiple independent and reliable sources. There's plenty of fan chatter, but not really in any formats that would count towards notability. I have absolutely no problem with someone wanting to userfy this content until more sources become available if this were to get deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with the Joe Shuster award. It's prestiguous enough, I believe. I think Dan Kim's comics also won some other awards. Anyone want to dig a bit to see if anything turns up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs a clean up definitely. The comic won three of those Shuester awards and I think self publication still holds up in notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.0.29 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I ran into with the Schuster award is that there is little to no coverage of the award. Normally when an award is notable enough to warrant keeping an article on that basis alone, there's a ton of coverage for the award and usually at least a little coverage for the persons winning the awards in something other than a primary source. That just doesn't seem to exist in this situation, which is why I had to go through the Schuster award site for this. I would also like to add that this isn't a vote and that you'll have to find coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to show that this award is notable enough to give absolute notability to where the award alone would keep the entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuster Awards has its own wikipedia article, though. Doesn't that help in giving it notability? :/ When debating deleting other webcomics on the basis of 'the awards not being notable enough', which most only had one, they ended up remaining up due to being notable in that the awards had their own wikipedia page. The criteria for notability don't say that something needs to have multiple awards or that they have to be recent.

Not necessarily. I've noticed that the argument for that is flawed because sometimes those awards aren't as notable as the articles would have you believe. If there was more coverage of this award in various sources I'd be more inclined to believe that a Wikipedia article equals notability, but there just isn't really that much out there about the award. A search brought up just under 50K worth of ghits and only a few handfuls of news sources. While that doesn't necessarily mean that the award can't be notable, it was enough to make me wonder if the award was major enough to be so notable that it'd keep the article based on the award alone. Most awards aren't at the level of major notability that merely winning the award keeps the article in and of itself. That's what my argument sort of surrounds: the award does seem to help notability but I don't know that it's so major that it'd keep the article on that basis alone. If you can bring up enough to show that the award is overwhelmingly notable I'd be willing to capitulate, but considering that this award has been around for eight years and has gotten such limited coverage is a little concerning to me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really? Just because the award's only been around for eight years doesn't negate its importance. I think that if the awards themselves are important enough to warrant a page then being a winner of said award should be enough to count as notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never assume that having an article gives notability. It could just mean that the article hasn't come up for deletion yet and to be honest, I've been debating nominating it because there just isn't a lot of coverage for this award to show that it really deserves an article. That's ultimately my concern here, that the award isn't really all that notable and that there's ZERO coverage of Kim winning the awards in independent and reliable sources. If you want to prove that the award is notable, work on showing coverage for the award. Other than trivial mentions of the award in relation to other people, I'm not seeing a lot of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that just having an article created means it is notable. However, in this case, I would say that his comics winning multiple Shuester Awards might give it more notability than many other webcomics that still have articles and aren't being debated for deletion.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confer _ 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to have to go with Tokyogirl79 on this one. I personally don't feel that Fred Gallagher plugging the author in one of his daily blogs comes close to providing the notability needed for the site to meet the notability criteria for websites, so that pretty much leaves the Joe Shuster awards. And Tokyogirl79 makes a very compelling case as to why winning the award is still not quite enough to establish notability. And on top of that, I'm having difficulty finding any other reliable sources that talk about the site at all. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lack of any significant third party sources aside from brief mentions on the illusive awards website suggest this company has yet to break into any format that would have it meet WP:ORG. Mkdw ^talk 00:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning multiple Shuester Awards gives it a leg up in notability, I believe. There's other webcomics on here that have less sources and even no awards won, yet they haven't been deleted. I'd like to add that based on a guidelines, notability can be established by winning a prestigous award which are covered by a wiki article of their own. I might try to look for some more sources, but this should be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Mkdw ^talk 06:37, 14 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Bowman

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

KzKrann (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of notability; no reviews of her books or news stories about her. Her books are published by Bowman Press[8] and the page was created by user "Organic gail". Hence, probably we have a self-published writer making a Wikipedia page about herself. Self-promotion isn't in itself reason for deletion, but it often suggest someone who has not had much influence or wider significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have found absolutely zero third-party sources to establish notability. Rather than Gail Bowman the author, I have found irrelevant newspaper articles to other Gail Bowmans. Ironically, I found a David and Gail Bowman here but this Wikipedia article never mentions that her husband is a minister. With a slightly positive note, I found her books at Google Books. Note to nominator: It is mandatory that nominators cite the reason(s) as to why they feel the article should be deleted. This helps other voters know what your concerns may be. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. I had already tagged this autobiography for speedy deletion. Not sure why the nominator thought and AFD was necessary. Absolutely no evidence that this person is in any way notable. Books are self-published. Referenced websites (http://www.healtfoodemporium.com and http://www.bowmancommunications.com) both appear to be owned by the author/subject of the article. Clearly a case of self-promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. She thinks she's notable because she has lupus? LOL. This is pure WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO from a WP:SPA who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Alas, there is no WP:LUPUSPATIENT. I do love the title of her vanity-press book, however--Raising Meat Goats for Profit. You know, as opposed to raising them for . . . pleasure. Qworty (talk) 23:56, 14 September 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010

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

The content can be merged with Sexual_harassment#India. If declined, the page in its current form needs to be re-written to be encyclopedic. Much of the matter is copy-pasted from the Press Information Bureauwebsite. Sesamevoila (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Ok, before I get lamblasted for an opinion, there are a couple things I noticed on this. The first is that some of the content is indeed a direct copy/paste from the above mentioned Press Information Bureau website - here's some of the text the writer pulled; "The proposed Bill, if enacted, will ensure that women are protected against sexual harassment at all the work places, be it in public or private. This will contribute to realisation of their right to gender equality, life and liberty and equality in working conditions everywhere. The sense of security at the workplace will improve women's participation in work, resulting in their economic empowerment and inclusive growth." Not being an expert on the laws of India concerning copy/paste/copyright/etc, I'll just mention that. On a second point, the language distinctly reads; The proposed Bill, if enacted... which tells me that it is simply in debate. Were we to list each and every piece of proposed legistlation that every country covered by Wiki is thinking of enacting, there would be no time or space to consider most other content (just look at how many years have transpired since the US even had a budget passed!). This thing says 2010 on it, so when will it be passed or if ever is in question atm. Though we include proposals that seem imminent 2012 Presidential election, logical by debate 2020 Summer Olympics, or stitched in time Ultimate fate of the universe, I'm inclined to consider something like this when it becomes more than a proposal :) So, merge is my first thought, but delete if there are copy/paste issues. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. The first segment is just a copy of text of the bill, not any article content. The second half is a copy/paste copyright violation as noted above. Once the copyright violation is removed, there's no content except the bill itself, which is not article content. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of my !vote above, the article was content-free, other than the copyvio. Now that the copyvio has been addressed and actual content has been placed in the article, I am withdrawing my delete !vote. I now express no opinion on the deletion of the article. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with editing Not all the article is a copy-vio (e.g. the section on criticisms). Contrary to what's said above about the bill languishing in limbo, it was passed by the lower house a month ago and will be voted on by the upper house later this year[9] so it has a good chance of becoming law soon. Enacted legislation is almost always notable, due to press coverage and coverage in legal books/journals, and precedent suggests that failed legislation can be notable too if it gets continuing coverage. The proposed bill already has plenty of press attention[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and doubtless more in non-English-language media. If this isn't enough then merge it and reinstate it as a separate article when it's enacted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 5 September 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) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand. The bill hasn't passed yet, but it seems to have been significant just for being introduced. It also looks likely to pass. I found a number of news stories talking about how the bill could be applied in different court cases, including how it was ruled to apply to domestic workers (women working in people's homes), which was a substantial ruling for those women's rights. I think I could clean this up pretty quickly, but I'm traveling for the next few days. Could I make a pass over the weekend? If people still feel it should be deleted or merged afterwards, I'd be fine with that, and at least then we'll still have some more detailed content to add to the main sexual harassment article. —Zujine|talk 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the amount of coverage it has been and is receiving. It even made the US press when it was passed (controversially) by the lower house on 3 Sept. 2012. I've had a go bringing into copyright compliance, and cleaning it up a bit, but it still needs a lot of work and expansion. There's a lot more to the subject which doesn't appear in the article yet. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on copyright compliance. The Press Information Bureau, Government of India (the source of the copypasted text), allows free re-publishing of their material for any purpose provided it is "reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" and they are prominently credited as the source [17]. I've now marked the material as a direct quote and attributed the source both in the text of the article and in an inline citation. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the necessary editing. The cut-and-paste content can be rewritten as a paraphrased summary, if Zujine or someone else is willing to do that. I endorse what Colapeninsula said, including the possibility that the topic may turn out not to be substantial enough to support an independent article, in which case it can become a section of another article. The media coverage, however, seems to offer explanatory detail that would be overly specific at Sexual harassment#India, while the main Sexism in India article seems more focused on culture and society, not legal issues per se. So while a general section on legislation and law might be a good addition to Sexism in India, a thorough explanation of this one bill in that article would just point to needing a spinoff article anyway. So why not just give the article some time, if its supporters will work on it? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'delete'Keep I'm not too sure if this is the right way of withdrawing my AfD nomination on this article but it's improved tremendously after the impressive editing that's been done on it. Sesamevoila (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, encyclopedic topic, educational, high value for readers and students alike. — Cirt (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevvu Keka

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

Non-notable future film. No significant coverage of this film project in any reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:NYF. While some coverage of its "launch" (essentially an announcement party) and pre-production is availble,[18][19][20] WP:NFF tells us we wait until we have more before we have an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above. Harsh (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nowman

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

Contested PROD. Concern was No asserted notability. This remains valid. Mr. Nowman has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dreyer

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

I'm having a hard time finding more reliable sources that do more than merely mention Dreyer. THe majority of these sources are YouTUbe and primary. Appears to fail GNG to me. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article points to seven different The New York Times reviews, a Village Voice review and two other newspapers. In the Dance world, the New York Times review is extremely notable, showing stature in one's field, and helps to fulfill the wiki criterion for notability. A closer look at the sources does reveal a plethora of youtube hits, a sign of notability and breadth of productivity. The article is comprehensive and exhaustive in its research of all the ways the lighting is represented. In the dance world, all that exists on the internet is a link to a review and possibly a youtube link. There are no academic journals to read 'about' dance lighting, and not much recognition to dance reconstruction, much less about dance lighting reconstruction. It is ephemoral. All that exists is perhaps a picture, a video and maybe a few lines in a review. Dreyer teaches other lighting designers in his own field, noted in two internet links to USITT, The United States Institute for Theatre Technology in 2009 and 2010. Leaders in their fields fulfill a wiki notability criterion. Dreyer is an international artist, having designed in both North and South America, Europe, and Asia, as noted in the article. The breadth of this career also satisfies a wiki criterion for notability. Donalds (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe New York Times reference, along with the multitude of other references which mention him in passing, should be enough to establish notability. The cites show his work with the Joffrey, which is the absolute pinnacle of the ballet world. Supporting the authors comments as to the quality of the references, excepting the YouTube ones. I count 5 references to respected newspapers, should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which New York Times reference? All of the ones I see are about the shows, not about Dreyer. They are mentions like, "Under Kevin Dreyer's beautiful lighting..." which don't seem to support the qualifications for BLP. Saying things like, "Dreyer's lighting designs have been reviewed in The New York Times on seven separate occasions" is not true to the source when it is more like— Dreyer has been mentioned in the reviews of many great shows. There are also a great deal of primary references like from the theaters themselves (and the Youtube links), it would be nice if they were cleaned up and trimmed down. heather walls (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As well as the many reviews that mention him briefly, there exists a reliably published article that is entirely about his lighting, and nearly 1000 words long, so Donalds' claim that "all that exists is a picture, a video, and a few lines in a review" is not actually true in this case. Mauro, Lucia (December 1, 2004), "Lighting a Christmas Classic" (subscription required), Stage Directions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the article, David. Also, what is BLP?Donalds (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's Wikipedia jargon for a "biography of a living person". The standards for articles about that sort of subject are stricter than for other subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's hard to be notable as an LD, but the many shorter reviews (7 productions in the NY Times, which Gtwfan52 rightly notes is the most important place to get reviews in the US theater world) plus David's find of the larger article, the association with Joffrey, the academic position, all point to a pass of WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:58, 12 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess I never actually expressed an opinion above but I think the sourcing is good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Diego Junior

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

Article appears to be a blatant hoax. Looking at the edit history, it has survived a PROD by having references added. However, all three of these references have nothing to do with the subject of the article. There is no online evidence of the existence of this player and the content of the article is essentially ludicrous. Google search brings back essentially no useful mention of this player by either his full name or his nickname.

Among the most ludicrous suggestions in the article are:

He has broken his legs in 19 places, including 17 in one hit and run
He scored in a pre-season friendly between a welsh amateur side and the Mogolian team he was apparently playing for
He ruptured his spleen falling off a donkey at his son's birthday party in Mongolia
He was only allowed to move to a Chinese top division side after spending a weekend in Malaysia with his Mongolian club's owner
He moved from China to a club in Haiti, then one in Greneda before disappearing for a year on a speedboat only to mysteriously return
His first born son is described as 2 in 2004 when he was in Mongolia, but by the time he comes to play for a Lithuanian team in 2009, this son is suddenly now 15 and his agent
He had to have surgery three times in Estonia after choking on broken glass trying to open a bottle with his mouth
According to the criticism section he has apparently also committed sexual offences, assaulted his own fans and regularly eats four pot roasts a day.
Oh yeah and to top it all he was refused entry into the USA because of his connections to a South American Drugs Cartel.

Needless to say none of this can be found anywhere, because its all nonsense. Should probably be a G3 but as it was referenced technically wasn't sure it would get through Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Federation

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

Organisation lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Only part with any decent sourcing is the coatrack about a connected individual but that only has trivial coverage of Pagan Federation. I've found nothing better duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'm not defending the article as it stands which I entirely agree is poorly written and not well sourced. But the PF is the UK's national representative body for a considerable religious minority, analogous to the Board of Deputies of British Jews which most people will have heard of, even if you haven't heard of the PF. Paganism in the UK has about 50,000 adherents according to the last census so although it's smaller than Judaism it's not a tiny, here-today-gone-tomorrow group. I am contacting the PF to ask if they have a news cuttings service and can give me some sources that meet WP:RS in order to improve the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "which most people will have heard of", really, I guess I don't fit into most people. Just like most people don't fit into. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, with several mentions in different sources. Google Books gives results including Introduction to Pagan Studies By Barbara Jane Davy, Witches, Witchcraft and Wicca By Rosemary Guiley, The New Generation Witches: Teenage Witchcraft in Contemporary Culture By Hannah E. Johnston, Peg Aloi, Religion and Youth By Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Pink Dandelion (Ashgate). They're frequently quoted by news sources, as a Google News search will show, but there's also a few news stories with a bit of detail about the organisation.[21][22][23] Since they date back to the 70s there's likely to be more that's not online Google Scholar has them mentioned in Graham Harvey, "The roots of pagan ecology", Religion Today, Volume 9, Issue 3, 1994. And thinktank Ekklesia has this[24]. An organisation that's been going for more than 40 years, and media coverage shows it's widely respected as the leading pagan organisation in the UK, but the sources I've given should provide material for a good article; I'll try and add some later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep and improve. While the current form of the page is admittedly lacking, this is a very significant organization for pagans in the UK, has a decades-long history, and (as previous comments have pointed out) a basic search reveals numerous mentions in solid references. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 23:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but this article needs serious help and improvement. See above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I had intended to try and improve the article this week before the 7-day AfD deadline came up but unfortunately I've had a bereavement and been unable to do so. If the article is kept I'll undertake to improve it following the helpful suggestions above. If it's deleted I will start from scratch and try to draft a more acceptable article from the ground up. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Relays

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

College tradition limited to a single campus, no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. Article is just a description of the race and a list of past winners, nothing of real encyclopedic value. Notability questioned since March 2009, without resolution. GrapedApe (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The previous nomination for this article was just closed after being relisted twice. - Eureka Lott 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Stop wasting Wikipedians' time. The previous nomination was closed just yesterday after relisting twice and no consensus. How long are we going to drag this out? GrapedApe, would you please withdraw the nomination? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and it was closed no consensus with only 1 comment. So, no.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion was a very lightly attended no consensus close, so I don't think it's disruptive to renominate here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 7 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and after that add more citations and clean it up For sources in which thus Hudson relays is mentioned, go to Google books and search for Hudson relays. See What you get. Numerous independent reliable sources. Meets notability criterion but it needs to be worked on and cleaned up. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions are not non trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A purely local event that doesn't have the coverage necesarry to establish notability. Yes, there are hits if you search for it in Google Books. However, these are entirely composed of entries in college guides that just list the events at every college. Its enough to prove that yes, the event exists, but nothing in any of those sources show any sort of widespread notability for it. Searching in the Google News Archives also seemingly gives plenty of results, however, these are all false leads, actually referring to actual track events, not to the subject of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete lack of notable third party sources that would suggest this event has any lasting effects or simply is important enough locally/nationally. Mkdw ^talk 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this event has lasting impact or meaningful significance. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars (rap group)

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

The only reference is not independent of the subject. The external link is an unreliable blog. The main things that I found in Google was unreliable sources and discographies. Google Books only turned up a mention of a California hip hop group and this band is from the UK. Google News and Highbeam turned up nothing. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this group, either; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 01:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a search for reliable sources discussing the subject found nothing promising. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:53, 16 September 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. Concerns about not meeting WP:GNG, and violating WP:OR and WP:SYN have not been adequately refuted. A convincing set of reliable sources on the subject has not been provided. Many keep voters express that the article should be rewritten from scratch. While there is consensus to delete the current version of this article, there should be no prejudice against re-creating the article as long as it is a scholarly article based on solid, reliable sources (assuming that is possible). In the meantime, I will redirect the article to Faux pas. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion faux pas

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N/WP:GNG: no coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; in addition to the nominator's rationale, the article seems to be inherently non-neutral (since the definition of what is a "fashion faux pas" is left up to the Wikipedia editors), and basically consists of WP:OR. --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's certainly no shortage of sources for this: see every women's and celebrity magazine since the dawn of fashion. At the same time, the current entry is gossipy and poorly sourced, nowhere near encyclopedic quality. A well-written article might be created on fashion no-nos and taboos through history (wearing white after labor day, etc). Ideally I'd like to see this dramatically improved, re-written, and its scope widened beyond the tabloid/celebrity focus. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:JUNK.

Oh, sorry, I can't. Therefore keep, because whatever is wrong with this article's quality, that's all firmly in the territory of WP:SOFIXIT and there's no reason I can stick a pin in that allows me to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks a solid core. Fashion is, by definition, a matter of transitory taste and de gustibus non est disputadum. Is it a faux pas to wear brown shoes or jeans? It might be but it all depends on the time and place. One might start an article about dress sense or clothing etiquette but this stuff is too parochial to be a good foundation. Warden (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not usually one for meta arguments but the reality is that this article keeps each of the listed examples from needing their own pages which I think has merits - see WP:USEFUL. Sure, that doesn't help the subject phrase meet WP:GNG. There are a number of sources which use the phrase, make passing mention of the phrase or refer to someone having committed a "fashion faux pas" like this, this and this. Am really on the fence with this one. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically from WP:USEFUL:

“

If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

”

While I do accept it fails WP:GNG, I think an argument can be made that the article is useful for bringing together a collection of marginally notable concepts, each of which falls into the same category. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the concepts can be considered a fashion faux pas because they are not categorized as such by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Note the last citation you mentioned, it uses it as an adjective: the compound word is only found in the headline (of the article) so it does not discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the other sources you cite discuss "fashion faux pas" in depth.Curb Chain (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the second one, right? The last is the name of a product. I did say each gave the term a passing mention rather than any form of in-depth coverage and I certainly wouldn't consider any of them to be reliable sources. I also acknowledged that it probably doesn't pass WP:GNG as a result. This is probably a bit closer to usable - it actually gives a definition for the term. But that won't be enough to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the 1st, 2nd, and now this 4th one also. If they don't meet WP:GNG then your opinion on "Weak keep" is kind of void IMO.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My weak keep opinion was based on the fact that I thought a usefulness argument could be made and I still believe it can. It's not a vote, it's a WP:CONSENSUS and an administrator will need to decide if a consensus has been reached or not. I imagine if I'm the only one making a usefulness argument and everyone else strongly disagrees then consensus will be reached outside my contribution anyway. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is not useful here (pun unintended). Articles are kept on the basis of notability and the list of examples are not sourced and probably impossible to source. To be honest, the collation of examples is a clear breach of WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they can also be kept on the basis of usefulness - "usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion". I don't think they are impossible to source - In 200x, David Beckham was described as having committed a "fashion faux pas" when he wore socks and sandals...[cite]. I just think if we cut this one up and send each section back to their respective articles (socks and sandals to socks and sandals) or merge the whole thing into dress code we're going to create an unwieldy page / set of pages and we'll end up back at AfC in a few months time. Again, my position was weak keep and I won't die in a ditch over it - just my opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of "it can be sourced" sound more like "i can write whatever I want, eventually it will be sourced". Hardly a reason for usefulness.Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really two different arguments. I didn't suggest "it can be sourced" (not sure where that quote is from), in fact I conceded it didn't meet WP:GNG. However, I believe the article is useful enough to merit inclusion. You are, as I said, free to disagree. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you don't think they are impossible to source suggesting they can be sourced. Being useful, well most thing are useful, but ~~that~~ we don't include everything on the planet.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was in relation to the individual examples listed therein, not the subject of the article. The usefulness argument is in relation to the subject itself - a collation of those individual examples. Sorry, perhaps I should have made that clearer. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep due to the easily determined availability of reliable sources. The nominator did not apply WP:BEFORE. The notion and definition of fashion faux pas is in the eye of the reliable sources, and not at all dependent upon Wikipedia editors, and spans more than a centuries. Here is evidence of discussion of the topic in multiple RS over time (there is some chaff in the wheat, but my point is made):

Search using Google Scholar
Search using Google Books

The existence of available sources means the article can be rehabilitated, and so should not be deleted. "Existence" does not mean presence in the article already. Further, the exact phrase "fashion faux pas" is not required to be present exactly like that in every source, as the nominator appears to be arguing: it can be a paraphrase, as long as the notion of a faux pas related to fashion is clearly made. Also definitions need not be explicitly stated, because, yes, sources differ in their individual opinions about an instance of a faux pas, but they can all be found to agree about the nature of what one is. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, and in fact we do not cite dictionaries as sources, as they are WP:TERTIARY sources, just like Wikipedia, who derive their reliability from that of their sources, just as we do. Some deletions were arguably valid (JPG source), but some deletions were arguably not valid: cited author, blog under newspaper/magazine, or "not notable". This deletion removed arguably relevant cited content, deemed "not notable" - WP:N, in its first page, specifically states that it is not a criterion for inclusion of content of articles, only entire articles themselves. Since there is a distinct possibility, assuming good faith, that the adding editors were unclear on the concept that RS means prose, not images. Because this article already survived one AfD, this is an issue of editor education, not deletion of a non-notable topic by any means. I agree with User:Colapeninsula's wish that this article be dramatically improved, re-written, and its scope widened beyond the tabloid/celebrity focus. Therefore, I advocate keep, with revisiting in, say, 3 or 6 months. --Lexein (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERTIARY sources are permissible in a limited fashion such as providing definitions but cannot be used extensively to write whole articles. It is a common mistake so not to worry. The bottom line is that your claim that we do not cite tertiary sources is not true. Regarding "... a notion ..."/the nature of a "fashion faux pas", Yes, we DO need a definition as all the examples are otherwise original research. That deletion was because it was an entry of trivia so I deleted it. In anycase I did not quote WP:N in the edit summary as if I was referring to that protocol for my reason for removing that prose. Are you saying that every nominator who renominates an article for deletion should take some sort of course? And should the nominator go through this course after the 3 or 6 months if s/he decides it should be deleted?Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually think this is too broad a topic to cover fully, as by its reasoning, almost anything might be considered a fashion faux pas somewhere. Many of the entries here can be summed up in the articles for the main subject - for example. "mom jeans" (don't get why they're wrong anyway, but that's irrelevant) can be described in the main jeans article, and so forth. This is something that can relate to Dress code - where clearly, anything that breaks the dress code is automatically a faux pas. Mabalu (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But part of making Wikipedia useful is to have indexes, lists, portals, summaries, and overviews that refer you to individual articles. How is putting it in jeans and a dozen other articles going to help people who want to know about fashion faux pas? Wikipedia isn't just about squeezing in information somewhere, it's about making information available to people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because (1) this list brings together several concepts about fashion into one, useful place; (2) our core readership, students, will likely look for this topic; (3) the Project is not harmed by its inclusion; and (4) plenty of tertiary sources can be found easily. If absolutely needed, tag it and userfy and move on. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd believe you if you gave me some consistent reliable sources.Curb Chain (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced, inherently original research and personal opinions. The article undeservedly survived last time, two years ago, so that the problems could be fixed. That has not happened, which must now be taken as evidence that the problems cannot be fixed. Reyk _YO! 04:20, 12 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response toColapeninsula (talk) above, putting here as it's a new comment:

I can see a weak case for a general article on the subject, but I can't really see it being much more than the definition "someone somewhere is wearing something that other people don't think should be worn". Which could be practically anything, anywhere really. One source will say faux pas, another source will say not... Fashion is so contradictory like that." Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition, liberally garnished with unsourced and minimally-sourced examples chosen by editor(s). The phrase itself appears to be of fairly recent origin, and might be supplanted by others in another decade or two, when some of the grievous fashion errors cited in the article return to being the height of fashion, and when boxer briefs, cargo shorts, and body piercings come to be regarded as the most faux of fashion pas. Kill this article on WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:NOTESSAY. Ammodramus (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ammoramus puts it very well. Anything beyond a simple dicdef will be hopelessly subjective (unless, say, it's hot pink with red hair...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to faux pas. - There seems to be endless amount of reliable source material on "Fashion faux pas". An early one I found is from 1986.[25] Ngram view shows usage over time.[26] The trouble here is how do you know what goes into the article and what doesn't. Does the inforation from the July 2012 article Women's absence from boardrooms is a fashion faux pas belong in this Wikipedia article? Doesn't seem like it would becase it isn't about fashion, yet the term is used in the news article title. How will the article cover the fashion faux pas's of the Bushmen (the ones who speak with clicks and whistles? I think articles in this area would need to be 1. a list as in List of fashion faux pas, 2. limited by time, and 3. limited by geography (e.g., List of fashion faux pas in 1990s France.). Even then, editors would not know what reliable soruce information belongs and what does not. I don't see how this could be made into a viable topic for Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being mostly WP:OR and unreferenced WP:JUNK. Potentially one could write some day an encyclopedic article about it. But that's true of many other topics, some of which are covered by entire books. Simply because the title might one day befit an article is no excuse to keep junk around. There has been virtually no improvement since the previous nomination closed [27] some two years ago. The theory that all junk articles improve by themselves is disproved here. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rewrite. Even those who want to delete the article agree it could be an encyclopedic topic, at least as a general article, bringing together the specific topics according to WP:SUMMARY style. The question is whether it is done best by starting over, or using this as a starting point. Sometimes the content can be so awful it should be destroyed , because of promotionalism or the like. This isn't quite that bad. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I don't (yet) agree that it could be an encyclopedic topic. First, you need to identify a date about when the term first was used. With "faux pas" being used before 1730,[28] when did "fashion" become attached to that. Ngram view shows usage in the 1960s.[29] An early book/magazine usage was in 1988.[30] Once you get an approximate beginning date for the term, where do you go from there? What would be an outline of how such an article could be written? The reverse dictionary brings up a variety of words,[31] but those don't seem to help. I just don't see a structure for such an article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patently wrong. Not everyone who wants to delete the article agrees that it is an encyclopedic topic and it isn't.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my dissent to Curb Chain's: this is not an encyclopedia topic—it's a dictionary definition. Ammodramus (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a common misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIC. There are also those who said that anything related to fashion is just unencyclopedic opinion; that's simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Criticism in fashion (such as pointing out "faux pas") can be treated encyclopedically. What is needed are wp:secondary and preferably academic sources. (They exist, but are pretty hard to find among the deluge of fashion magazines, e.g. [32] has a discussion.) This article should be deleted because it relies exclusively on wp:primary sources (where it cites any sources at all). There ware way too many expressions of opinion about one or other fashion "faux pas" out there (something that's actually said in the source I just gave you, ha!), so an article constructed from primary sources would indeed be rather wp:indiscriminate. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and unsource-able is a reason for deletion. Needing better quality sources (which provably exist) is not a good WP:DEL-REASON, right there on the policy page. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale meets the letter of the policy: as "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". If you'd rather discuss the contents of the article instead of wikilawyering, I'm open to substantive dialogue. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not patently wrong: Enough deleters agree that "is encyclopedic", to simply keep and improve.See also WP:DEL-REASON. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is patently wrong, as I see none of the deleters used the phrase "is encyclopedic".Curb Chain (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. The definition of what is a fashion-screw up is left to an individual. Therefore listing examples doesn't work, and that's what the entire article is. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's up to what reliable sources say on the topic, and there are plenty of them. See my Keep, above. Present flaws aside, there are reliable, and even scholarly, resources on the subject, therefore, deletion is not WP:DEL-REASON called for. If RS relevant sources exist, keep, even if one must grit one's teeth. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I still don't see any really good sources that could bring this article to anything more than a dictionary definition. You could have historical examples, I guess, but I hope we can at least agree the current ones need to go? I mean, I think socks and sandals are just fine, why is it a fashion screw up? Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but completely rewrite. The existing article is abysmal, with references for only 2 of the 9 listed faux pas, and no references for the actual topic of "Fashion faux pas" and what one is. I agree that the topic could be encyclopedic, though, and we should be discussing the topic and not the current content of the article. I would think we need a decent background section discussing fashion and fashion criticism, a discussion about the non-universality of individual fashion faux pas, and a limited number of examples drawn from a wide variety of time periods and geographic locations. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Allergy Network

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

Not notable, CSD repeatedly removed by creator, promotional by COI editor. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would say that the information given is important. You need to give a chance to the members of the public to present factual information. It may have looked initially as promotional, but in fact at the moment it is just factual. I'm sure that further reviews will improve it. I may guess that GregJackP will decide to revise his speedy decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.197.42 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What does factual have to do with it? Thus far, it has not shown notability as shown by independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Providing promotional informational to the public is not the purpose of the project. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Article written by COI. reddogsix (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Arguments for keeping are just "it contains valuable information". Normally I would suggest userfication but if the editors are in a conflict of interest, then no. --Drm310 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kafeel Bukhari

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

Not-notable. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits. GHits consist of social media and the like. The 2 refs show only a trivial mentions (once each). Declined speedy. GregJackP Boomer! 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have contested a PROD, but there's too clear an assertion of notability for A7. He is claimed to be "a leader of Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam" and the current refs do mention him speaking at rallies. Are there perhaps foreign-language refs where he does receive notable coverage? Hopefully the Islam and Pakistan deletion discussion projects will shed some light. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be non-notable per WP:BIO. As mentioned above, this subject finds only passing mention in a few news items. --SMS ^Talk 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Delete aside from facebook and youtube, no sources in google news or google books with someone of this name. 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Seiya character techniques

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

Excessive trivia that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans and serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is a violation of WP:IINFO, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:WAF. The information is based entirely on primary sources with no coverage by independent reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Trivial, overly detailed plot-only information with no secondary sources and nothing to show any sort of notability. Merging any information here into the List of Saint Seiya characters is not an option as that would merely serve to bloat that article (already suffering from the need for cleanup) further with information that is pure fancruft. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In-universe trivia "sourced" only to the work of fiction itself. Rorshacma is right that stuffing this cruft into other articles would make them worse. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic obviously lacks notability to have its own article, but I'm not sure if it should not be merged at least partially into the existing character lists. Some of this information concerns anime and manga that have not yet been licensed in English and the techniques are a big part of these series, so is it really all right to leave those character lists featuring unofficial translations only? Cyn starchaser (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the character articles listing techniques? They don't add anything to the character descriptions and are just trivia of interest to a small group of fans. I've taken the WP:BOLD step of removing the listings there. —Farix (t | c) 10:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the series' genre, the techniques could be considered a defining trait of the characters, but I see where you're coming from. Since all the unofficial translations are now gone from the character articles, I have no further problems accepting this resolution. Cyn starchaser (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure trivia and fancruft. Only for fans of the series, probably belongs in a Saint Seiya wiki somewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki if possible, otherwise delete as trivia. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move useful content to Wikia - This is fine on Wikia, here not so much.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Metropolitan Area

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

Contested PROD, reason was This doesn't exist in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget definitions of metro areas. Per California statistical areas, the boundary of the Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA μSA coincides with Humboldt County, California. "Pepper" @ 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like bad original research; it's unreferenced, it claims the metropolitan area only covers part of the county, and it claims that there's an Eureka County in the metro area. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and as a hoax. --Rs chen 7754 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, Eureka is a μSA not MSA. Dough 48 72 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/OR. Refers to interstates that don't exist, misrepresents population figures, and has no references at all. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Hayes

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related pages, all of which are U-20 players and also fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG:

Banana Fingers (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete all - non-notable college players who fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I do feel that it is inappropiate to put Maya Hayes in the same AfD as three micro-stubs with no indication of notability. Afterall, Maya Hayes do have some claim of notability. However: as she hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented her country at senior level, the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: per what Mentoz said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - All three fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:25, 15 September 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. There is consensus that this page does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am choosing to delete rather than redirect as this title doesn't seem like a very plausible search term. If anyone would like the article to be copied to their userspace, just ask me on my talk page and I will do it for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of Moon Hoax - Rima Ariadaeus

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

Wikipedia is not snopes.com. We do not need an article for every yahoo chain email that comes through, and this meme does not appear to have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thanks I was wondering if this article can be merged with a larger article about religious hoaxes. This is basically divulging hoaxes towards propoganda. I feel the hoaxes are present on the internet and Wikipedia is the source which most people trust. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Splitting of the moon which already mentions this. I don't think it's sufficiently important/notable to merit its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret, because I find this article rather interesting (just as the articles on snopes.com are interesting), but unfortunately "interesting" is not an inclusion criterion for Wikipedia. The title would be a rather implausible redirect since we already have the main article. We have Category:Religious hoaxes, which could possibly be tagged to the splitting of the moon article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gene93k, better copy this page to your userspace before its too late. --TheChampionMan1234 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "too late". If it's deleted first, any admin can restore it to anyone's user space. I'm willing to do it if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula. Some of the sources are really ridiculous. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Details:

I have seen that references from Jarfariya News Network have been used as credible references for multiple Islam related articles.
Moreover I have posted television clips that prove this was indeed circulated by Mass Media to the public. Hence I differ that the article is poor in terms of referencing.
This article involves the website of an eminent person holding a high office - Mr. Zaghloul Najjar.
Redirect would mean too much corruption to the Splitting of the moon article. Although the content is arguable.
I have added more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page about religion related hoaxes. I think that it should be removed and the contents moved to the Category: Religious Hoaxes. Kindly inform me of what is happening. It seems I have created a duplicate page.
My Main Referemces

http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k8_news/march/22moon_crack.htm - Used as a credible source in many places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA52owyeSsU - Zaghloul El Najjar on Al Jazeera
http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/main.php?id=31 - About Zaghloul El Najjar

--Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 18 September 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 incubate. Being listed in a template isn't a valid argument for keeping an article, and the subject doesn't seem to pass our notability guidelines. I found the arguments to userfy persuasive, but I am choosing to incubate rather than userfy as there is no guarantee that the original author will become active again or that they will wish to work on the article. The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Phillip Supernaw. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Supernaw

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

Was a BLPPROD, sources added, notability looks flimsy since he appears to have never played in the NFL but I am not an expert on American Rugby :) Black Kite (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Template:Houston Texans roster navbox reserve team. No worse than some others, but notable enough to be offically listed. The article does need some work. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Players on the practice squad of a team are not notable enough to be listed. Partially explains why other players on the practice squad do not have their own wikipedia pages. The only other two players on the Texans practice squad with pages are notable for their accomplishments in college. Case Keenum was a record setting quarterback at Houston and Jeff Maehl was an integral part of the '10 Oregon Ducks who played in the BCS national championship. Notability is not proven through the links given. In fact, all four links discuss in depth Case Keenum and include Supernaw in a laundry list of players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.77.155 (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Userfy is fine by me![reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few mentions in Google News. Does not appear to have met WP:GNG through his collegiate career.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the usual story for a relatively unremarkable free agent NFL signee. Received no major college awards and is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH; has not played in an NFL regular season game and therefore is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. College career did not generate enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy general notability standards per WP:GNG. Delete for now, but with the caveat that the article creator should either save the code, or closing admin should grant "userfy" request, for quick recreation of article if and when subject satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Userfy is a good option by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 13 September 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 Blue Peter. The additional sources mentioned by Bobby987 unfortunately do not appear to support the subject's notability, as they either do not qualify as reliable under Wikipedia's definition, or they are connected somehow with the subject. I have exluded the "retain" argument for this reason. After this argument has been exluded, there appears to be a rough consensus to merge. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Leger

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

TV producer, was a BLPPROD but now has some sources, doesn't look massively notable still though. Black Kite (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge into Blue Peter. A brief there is better than a complete deletion. If more notable info, awards and recognition comes up in the future, then another article can be written on him. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least Merge to Blue Peter; Leger is probably as close to famous as a TV producer - how behind-the-scenes is that? - can reasonably get, with an incredibly long service on an extremely well-known program. However, putting my Wikipedian hat on, while there are sources including the book on Blue Peter, notability remains borderline. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as separate article. As the creator of this page I've now added extra references as per Wiki policy. I'd respectfully suggest Leger is notable given BP is an incredibly well-known TV programme and he was absolutely key, albeit admittedly not on screen, to many of its most famous reports/events. He drove the agenda and chased the stories that BP was once famous for. I will try and find some more sources to back this up, but hope interest in all aspects of BP, including how it was made and by who, will be taken into account. Thanks. Bobby987 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce icon This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 September 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. Deleted at request of author and sole content contributor, under G7. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Leela Pandey

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

Found this with a BLPPROD on it, it's been sort-of-sourced but it still doesn't look very notable to me, so bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject, lacking independent and verifiable sources. With the earlier removal of an unproven assertion regarding the critical reception of a manuscript, there isn't anything that otherwise confers notability or credibility. After considering the sources, it’s evident that

Omkar Vighne's blog is unreliable, a poorly-written review that someone likely drafted within minutes, without any proof-reading for coherence or grammar

In retailing the author's creative output, the Dialabook and I-Proclaim bookstores aren't independent from the subject

Where Ink Splashers Publications is the publisher of the subject's literature, it reasonably follows that the company is similarly partisan. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:20, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontas Pastistsios controversy

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

No-notable controversy being held at Facebook over a Facebook page that satirizes a Greek monk. I see no coverage from reliable sources to showcase any supported notability, so that this purported "controversy" is worth an article. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Keys words like controversy and feud stand out and this reads more like a gossip page. IF, an only if, in the future the so-called 'theory' holds up and is written about then maybe. At this time, it is more likely a flash in the pan, and more likely not to be notable in a few years. This removes it from the encyclopedic concept. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, and since this feud (I stand by my terminology) is ongoing, I agree to its deletion, if this doesn't get news coverage from at least one major tv channel, or newspaper within a week. I just want to give it some time, because it only started two days ago, but its fierceness, makes me believe it will last and will get bigger in time. Spartacus Marat

Why not merge to Elder Paisios of Mount Athos? I don't think this meets speedy deletion criteria, but I'm skeptical as to whether it'll meet notability requirements for news events. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I don't consider this notable enough even to be mentioned in another article. It has no reliable sources covering it. Otherwise, i would have recommended a merger instead of deletion. But I understand your point. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we are going to go around giving Wikipedia pages to every person who gets into a Facebook flame war, I want my garage band re-evaluated. The band has a Facebook and a Twitter account with literally tens of followers! :) ---Guy Macon (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom and per Guy. WP:SENSATION in particular and WP:EVENT in general indicate the coverage here is not of a quality or diversity to establish topical notability in an encyclopedic sense. There's also no indication that the event is of any lasting significance. JFHJr (㊟) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if there were some news coverage, this would still meet WP:NOTNEWS, and others that are mentioned above. First Light (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK delete this. I've seen tons of other more ridiculous articles around, like tv episodes from shows that didn't even get a 1.0 in the Nielsen ratings, but apparently, religious sentiments are affecting the judgements here. I have no objection therefore, and I know that you are going to reference some Wikipedia standards, that not even half the Wikipedia pages match. You can't fight Wiki Hall, even if the blogs I referenced -reputable or not- are talking about this, and are much higher in the Alexa rankings, than all of the newspapers, and their viewers per day are more than twenty times the readers of the major Greek newspapers. Therefore, I delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No news coverage, just a non-notable Facebook hoax. -- 202.124.74.198 (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sounds like a NN joke. It might theoretically be possible to merge a couple of sentences into Elder Paisios of Mount Athos, but even that would probably fall foul of WP:TRIVIA. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 17 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hi-tech companies

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

High tech is not defined, either at its article, or in this list. Thus, the inclusion criteria are impossibly vague. I would simply rename this "List of technology companies" but I am not sure it would be of much use even then (its such a small subset right now). article is still orphaned after years. (PS creator is banned)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even "technology companies" is too vague. Category:Lists of companies by industry has plenty of lists that cover everything this list does, without jumbling it all together in this useless conglomerate. postdlf (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the inclusion criteria is far too vague. How is Atari, Inc. hi-tech? How is Atari related to McAfee? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for inclusion in this list are not established. We have unrelated companies like Business Objects, pertaining to business intelligence; eBay, engaged in online shopping; and Genentech, related to biotechnology. What is the nexus among these companies? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague a topic to have a list on it. CtP (t • c) 20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Vonner

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. no coverage in gnews [33]. no major recognition or awards. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, fails WP:BIO. This is one of several articles under the Category:Toy designers. All of the following, under the same category, would fail notability as does David Vonner.
Delete -The following articles should also be considered for deletion for the same reason. Not one is notable in awards, recognition or under any encyclopedia standards. See: Aaron Archer, Stephen Beck, Thomas Dam, Don Figueroa, Jerry Frissen, Ron Fuller (artist), and Dillon Naylor. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dogra, Orissa

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

Contested PROD. Article doesn't demonstrate notability per the general notability guideline. After doing a Google search I couldn't find anything about Dogra (the one is Orissa), which indicate it is of any particular note. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - stub provides nothing of note. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I was not able to find any notable third party sources to support such a place exists and is noteworthy. Mkdw ^talk 00:05, 13 September 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. Purely in terms of numbers, I count 9 keeps and 6 deletes (including the nominator).Though the "keep" !voters are in the majority, the relative scarcity of the sources and the arguments advocating bending the notability guidelines make me hesitant to close this as a straight "keep". However, there is certainly no consensus to delete at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tylman was mayor of a small town in England, Faversham, which has a current population of 17,000. According to the article he served for one year only. All the sources provided are genealogical websites and there is no explanation why he is considered notable. Oddly, the author of this article, Poeticbent, who identifies himself as "Richard Tylman", had earlier created another article with the same name, but about an obscure 21st Canadian graphic artist. That article was deleted based on unanimous consent except for Poeticbent (actually a sockpuppet he created called Dr. Loosmark). TFD (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of sockpuppetry is false - the link between Poeticbent and Dr. Loosmark was a mistake.VolunteerMarek 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? TFD (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? - So the original article was about an artist and was deleted? And has now been "re-created" but about someone else with the same name? But it has been recreated by someone who (IRL) is the artist who was the original subject of the original (deleted) article? So the artist creates an article about himself, it gets deleted (after a number of AfD and some ArbCom stuff) and then creates a new article about a different guy with exactly the same name who (per the nom) is also not notable? Seriously? Stalwart111 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better. The 3rd AfD waa mentioned in an article in the Journal of Information Technology & Politics (2020) which said, "For an example of a discussion in which the closing admin clearly stated he is going against “by-the-numbers” reading, see for example the Deletion Review discussion of the “Richard Tylman” article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_18." (The article can be found by clicking "scholar" above".) The AfD process has attracted more scholarly attention than either of the two Tylmans. TFD (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, the JITP article is by User:Piotrus: JITP gives the author's name as Piotr Konieczny, and Piotrus' userpage (which gives his name as Piotr Konieczny) lists it as one of several papers that he's published. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I notice that he voted to keep in the first two AfDs. TFD (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from Wikipedia and Move to the genealogy wiki called WeRelate. This article is perfect for WeRelate, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Please allow editor time to move or better yet, have it moved to his sandbox. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Jrcrin001 that this is an interesting piece of family and local history, nicely researched via ancestry.com, that would grace a family website or a genealogy site. Unfortunately it's not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not following the politics of who wrote it- the test is "Is it useful" and it passes that. Firstly this is referenced so is not a stub but Start/C class. Secondly Faversham in the 1500s was an important town, and anyone studying mediaeval history or doing studies on Kent, mediaeval transport will find it a useful case study. Talking about notability of a sucessful merchant when we cover so few. Look at the dross that we have to police in Chatham, Kent#Notable people (30 miles away) and compare that with a BIO of a man who fed London, under Elizabeth the First.

Yes it is a C/start, but could be used as the basis of school projects in UK curriculum stages KS2, KS3, KS4. Is there more work to be done. Yes. More articles are needed on provincial Tudor merchants and Kent- but finding good content providers is tough. Encouraging genealogists to come over and share their work is one method- all we do is accept their work and wikify it- and pull it up the quality scale. WP:GNG should not be used to prevent content. The guidelines are guidelines. It is the subject not the article or the author that should be judged.

Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (people) This guy was a significant merchant, in a significant town of the period, serving significant royal, a successful politician having achieved a notable honour and is still known for his work 500 years later. We are talking about 1540- and by those criteria he rings all the bells.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "is it useful" is very definitely not the criteria for encyclopedia status? And, by contrast, WP:GNG very definitely is the basic rule we look at to work out whether we have an article or not? And the suggestion that schools should be looking to WP articles as the basis for research projects, even as a starting point, fills me with horror. N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ClemRutter convinces me; I had looked it over only very quickly and failed to notice previously that this guy is not the mayor today but was the mayor several centuries ago. First off, that makes the 17K population completely irrelevant; if we had an article on someone who was the mayor of Kaskaskia, Illinois back when it was the state capital and a flourishing city, it wouldn't be right to object to the article because he was the mayor of a village that has nine residents today. Secondly, our notability criteria for biographies are meant largely to exclude your run-of-the-mill people who are active today or were active recently (that's where we have a surplus of biographies that don't belong), or people from the farther past about whom we can't write anything substantial. The fact that we even know something about this guy's activities nearly half a millennium after he lived is a testimony that he should be judged notable, passing the spirit of WP:BIO. Finally, if you object to everything that I just said, please note that there's substantial coverage in at least two reliable sources (citations #4 and #5), so the letter of WP:BIO is passed as well as the spirit. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite something, both of you. These feel like persuasive arguments despite what do look like rather minimal sources, but then, what would we expect from so long ago. (We certainly needn't worry about BLP...) Guess I'm not used to remembering that the second G in WP:GNG is just "Guideline"... well, if it's OK to be a little more flexible in accepting a nicely-written article about an interesting guy from 5 centuries ago, then we should Keep. Is that all right for the WP: rules and standards experts out there? If so, I'll change my vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the significance of Faversham, there are just no reliable sources for this subject. Richard Tylman is mentioned only once (in the appendix) in Edward Jacob's The history of the town and port of Faversham: in the county of Kent (1774). Mayors were selected for one year terms. Similarly, he is not mentioned at all in the other secondary source used in the article, "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780". Otherwise the article is built on genealogial records from non-reliable sources. If Richard Tylman is that interesting, then perhaps someone will write an article about him that could be used as a source. Until then, this is just original research. TFD (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the Wilkinson article; the citation mentions five pages from the document, and the first one (11) alone gives this guy a substantial mention. Remember that there are spelling variations, so you can't rely on a computerised Find feature; you'll have to look it over yourself. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice that there are a scattering of mentions of a "Richard Tillman". There is no evidence that this is the same person. Odd that when describing Tillman as a merchant in 1580 it would omit that he was also mayor. He might have been a relative or unrelated. Odd too that the source would use the spelling "Tylman" to refer to another person of that name. Even if we could establish that the merchant and the mayor were one and the same, it does not establish notability of either. TFD (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are you are incorrect. It was common for profitable merchants to become mayors of the community; given the varieties of spelling in a given time, if we find records on two people from a given time and location with a similar name, one an officeholder and another, a merchant, they are more likely the same rather than not. However, any alternative spellings should be added to the article, and it may be a good idea to note that the references to the merchant are based on a source with a spelling variation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, there is absolutely no guarantee of consistent spelling in the primary sources of the period. In such a situation, it's likely that Wilkinson would be following the spelling used by the sources he's examining without worrying about the spellings appearing in other primary sources. Meanwhile, Wilkinson is looking primarily at commercial development, not political matters, and as governments of the period often didn't interfere so greatly in commercial matters as they do today, one's involvement in politics might well not be seen as relevant to one's involvement in commerce. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An interesting little bit of long-ago genealogical research, but in the absence of published Wikipedia-reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability, it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited sources seem reliable enough to me. See also my post at WP:RSN about Ancestry.com. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - The subject was once the biggest exporter of grain to London from an ancient port city during the reign of Elizabeth I of England. The published sources of info seem reliable to me. But please, take a closer look at the actual rationale for this nom, because there's a little lie in virtually every sentence there. Most importantly though, the nominator here, was also the AfD nominator at the previous nomination for an entirely different set of reasons, linked to ArbCom shenanigans more than anything. This is not a simple coincidence. Poeticbent talk 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Do you have a source for "once the biggest exporter of grain to London"? 2) Yes, I do agree there is at least some bad faith in this nom (including a false accusation of sockpuppetry, a rather low blow, tsk, tsk), but let's try to stay civil and focus on the article, rather than editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Poeticbent's Block Log: "14:32, 15 September 2011 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Poeticbent (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark)".[34] Now kindly strike out your false accusation against me. TFD (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I know, this was a mistake, and Loosmark was never a Poeticbent's sock. You may be able to obtain more information from the ArbCom, as far as I know not everything has been made public regarding this issue, and in any case, this is not the right place to discuss it (irrelevant, stale, poisoning the well, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How does that justify me of making false accusations? I certainly was not aware of ARBCOM determining that this was a mistake. Note that the unblocking administrator said, "Unblocked following appeal to ArbCom on condition only this account is used".[35] TFD (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        While you are right that you are not to be faulted for the confusing block log entry, there was and is no reason for you to bring it into this discussion. Discussing editors, instead of articles, is not helpful, to say the least. I am certainly willing to refactor and remove my comment, if you do so as well (remove all unnecessary comments related to Poeticbent). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I brought the block log entry into the discussion because you accused me of making false accusations. The relevance is that Poeticbent was the only editor who voted in favor of keeping this article on the 4th AfD. TFD (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how somebody's past action are relevant; and if you care about this you should've disclosed that you were the nominator of that AfD which IMHO seems more relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Nyttend on the politician angle (I think that historical mayors should be notable by default). Unless more info is provided, I am not sure if he is notable as a merchant, but the office holder part, given the historical context, should be sufficient. PS. I suggest moving the article to Richard Tylman of Faversham to avoid any confusion with other Richard Tylmans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the requested source (5): Paul Wilkinson, PhD, MIfA, FRSA. "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780" (PDF direct download, 749 KB). The Kent Archaeological Field School, p.104, http://www.kafs.co.uk/pdf/port.pdf. Quote: Richard Tillman [of Faversham] (p.89) was the corn merchant for all 16 voyages [emphasis mine] with wheat in the Blackeleeche of Faversham and on other ships... (p.104) Poeticbent talk 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that "Richard Tillman" who is described on that page as being listed in the "Port Book of 1580" is the same person as "Richard Tylman" listed in the History as being mayor in 1580, and not a related or unrelated person with a similar name? Why does this source not mention he was mayor, and why would it use the spelling "Tillman" when it mentions a "Humphrey Tylman" on page 40? And why is this passing mention to one of many merchants mentioned in the source notable? TFD (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well reasoned argument of ClemRutter. In terms of history and economic history, most certainly a notable individual.VolunteerMarek 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is seriously afflicted by recentism, not least because of course written sources - let alone accessible digital ones - are far rarer to start with for historical figures. For that reason too, it's always hard to make judgments or comparisons about notability between eras. However, the fact that we are basically relying on genealogy websites as sources is not a good sign. If he was notable by any standards, couldn't someone find a history book that mentions him, however briefly, in a substantive way in relation either to his business or political career? Ultimately, surely, the only objective way to look at this, while making allowances for the lack of sources, is to ask - would we have an article about a local, moderately successful small-town businessman who served for a year as mayor of that town? I'm not sure we would. N-HH talk/edits 17:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable by any standards, couldn't someone find a history book that mentions him, however briefly, in a substantive way in relation either to his business or political career? - Sure: [36] and [37].VolunteerMarek 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first of those doesn't bring up any content or text for me; the latter is more promising but doesn't say much other than that he bought some commercial premises and traded in grain. I was thinking of a history of Kent that explicitly asserted something, say, about his role, status or lasting contribution, even just locally. I'm still not sure we would have a WP page for someone from this century who bought a warehouse and sold some corn. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - but he was also a mayor, and holding such office IMHO makes him notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN suggests otherwise .. N-HH talk/edits 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because according to the strict reading, no local politician before 18th century or so should be notable, because no could receive the required "press coverage" before the advent of the press :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifications there are why I only said "suggests". Although wp:politician doesn't simply ask for "press" coverage - at point 3 it talks about "significant coverage in reliable sources". Allowing for a pro-rata downgrade of the quantity/significance threshold there, we're still back to the proposition that this guy would need some substantive mention or analysis beyond him having bought and traded a few things. N-HH talk/edits 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-written and sourced to multiple primary sources and a couple of secondary sources (see discussion above). I do not think that such person would be less notable than, for example, individual historical houses, such as this one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Delete - given I didn't actually give my opinion on the article itself. I would be in favour of a Move to Richard Tylman of Faversham (as suggested by Piotr) - I think that helps with some historical context. I also think some of the WP:LINKSPAM'd genealogy and ancestry.com links need to either be consolidated or removed. Perhaps moved to External Links or something. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Faversham had a book entirely about it written in 1776: The History of the Town and Port of Haversham: In the County of Kent by Edward Jacobs. The book lists our subject as a mayor for a year. See page 122.
- There is then this: [38] An obviously reliable source says: "Richard Tylman of Faversham, yeoman, allowed a badger by Michael Sondes, knight, Richard Sondes, and George Waller, esqs" on July 22, 1600. That throws most of the genealogy references into question, assuming any one accepted them to begin with. A badger is the right to trade food or grains.
- There is an article "Notes from the records of Haversham, 1500-1600" by J.M. Cowper in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Volume I, here: page 218 which lists the number of houses in Haversham as roughly 200, and population at most 1400 in the time period we are interested in.
- The book "The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780" does mention a Tillman from Haversham who was a trader. Since the time and place match, and since the place had just 200 houses (and 200 heads of households), it is reasonable to take this Tillman as Tylman. The place couldn't have had two traders of grain at the same time with such similar names.
- ~~Per this link [39] the guy seems to have been involved in a court case, with the type marked "concord," against John Cok and his wife, Maria. I don't know what "concord" means here.~~
- In the article of the Royal Historical Society mentioned earlier, [40], on page 169 is a listing of the property of Nicholas Tylman, our subject's father (again, there couldn't have been two Tylmans there at that time heading two different households), at the time of the father's death. Richard Tylman is mentioned nowhere in the text (there is an index at the end, with the Tylman page visible in Google Books preview). Churn and change (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicholas Tylman mentioned in the Royal Society article[41] could not have been the father of Richard Tylman, since Nicholas lived from 1516-1568[42] while the Royal Society article is about a Nicholas who died in 1577.

The Richard Tylman who was sued over a "concord" could not be Mayor Tylman because the case occured in 1484, 62 years before the future mayor's birth in 1546.

Since the Tylman family had settled in Kent since at least 1225 and several branches of the family had settled in Faversham,[43] it is not reasonable to assume that the Richard Tillman mentioned in the article as living in Faversham in 1580 was the same person as the mayor of Faversham in 1580. It is not uncommon btw for cousins to have the same christian names. In any case that is original research. We would need a source that put this together.

TFD (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using unreliable genealogical sources to argue against identification from a reliable source (for the Nicholas Tylman case; I do agree about the court case)? All identification in any source requires some interpretation. I don't understand what cousins having the same given name has to do with it. We are talking of Haversham in particular, not Kent in general. We need two traders of food/grains from a place with 200 households, at the same time, with similar given names and slightly different surnames. Excluding that may be OR, but is subject to debate; it is not obviously WP:OR. After all no source is going to say: "This is XYZ who is the subject of the article on XYZ on Wikipedia"; we always infer that from context and a set of circumstances (name, place, date, other referential associations). Whether the inference rises to WP:OR depends on editorial discretion. Churn and change (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources providing lifespans used in the article are reliable. However common sense tells us that a person who was mayor in 1580 could not have been involved in a court case in 1484 and that a former mayor would not be described as a yeoman. The only source that a Nicholas Tylman was the father of Richard Tylman is a non-rs family tree. While it may seem strange to us today, there was a time when families remained in the same location for centuries, so it would not be unusual to find people of the same surname living in the same town. Also, since most corn from North Kent was shipped through Faversham, and trading corn was one of the main industries in Faversham ("The Historical Development of the Port of Faversham, Kent 1580-1780"), there would be many people involved in the trade. To conclude that the mayor and the trader were one and the same person cannot be supported by the sources provided. We do not even have a source that the mayor was involved in the corn trade. TFD (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on discussions

Most comments would me more valuable on the Talk:Richard Tylman.

This seems to have degenerated from a discussion about whether a guy who lived 500 years ago is notable enough for inclusion in our revered pages to one on genealogical research and accuracy of mediaeval primary sources. Can I remind everyone of WP:OWN. There also seems to be a mistaken idea of what a mediaeval politician was-it was more a question of family connections than policies. In the FA about William Shakespeare who was actually more recent that Richard- doubt about the accuracy of the sources is treated in the article William Shakespeare#Speculation about Shakespeare

The question of title has been raised. Until we have another Richard Tylman article I believe it is policy not to disambiguate. Richard Tylman of Faversham would be wrong, as no such title existed. Richard Tylman (merchant) probably is the correct title. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that writers of secondary sources have examined the historical documents and made judgments and other writers have explained the differences of opinions these writers have. We do not have Wikipedia editors pulling out records and trying to piece them together. And of course Shakespeare is notable not because he is mentioned in various records, but because of his body of work, which has survived. TFD (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I had my doubts about this article and wondered whether to vote "delete (with regret)". If we have dab-issues withg the name, moving to Richard Tylman (merchant) would be appropriate. I observe this is the 5th nomination, so that it has been kept four times. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complicated. — The AfD nominator here, was also the AfD nominator at the 4th nom (previously) during the EEML attack on this entry, and... due to mitigating circumstances, the article was actually deleted, except that the content was entirely different, as so was the subject of this article. This (already 5th) nom is the TFD's controversial rehash of an old ArbCom wrangle from two years ago. The actual article entitled "Richard Tylman" has been kept (not four) but three times. It was voted out only after a large group of concerned editors was formally prohibited from participating in these proceedings. Poeticbent talk 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's even a little more complicated than that... In the interests of full disclosure, the original article (nominated 4 times) was about Richard Tylman, a Canadian poet. The article was a COI BLP created by the subject himself. Consensus was against the original author at the last (4th) AfD (though, as above, there was some conjecture about involvement) and the article he wrote about himself was deleted. The "original" Richard Tylman (the subject of that original article) is alive and well and edits here as Poeticbent (above) - it's right there on his user-page; it is openly declared and he makes no secret of it. Having had the article about himself deleted, Poeticbent/Richard Tylman then created this article about a different guy with exactly the same name. It's very complicated and perhaps a bit strange (as I incredulously noted above) but I don't think any of that makes for a useful argument for or against the notability of this Richard Tylman. I also can't see how there could be a conflict of interest with the current subject, given their name is the only thing the author and subject have in common. I'm still in favour of move, if for no other reason than it gets us away from all the strangeness associated with this particular one. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Nom and article creator should probably reach a consensus. This reliable source might help. Churn and change (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POLITICIAN presumes notability for "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The office of mayor is certainly a "major" office, meeting the "major local political figure" portion. I don't know what kind of "press coverage" this person received in the 1500s, but it's certainly inappropriate to apply modern day standards for press coverage to a 16th century figure, and the fact that enough published information remains half a millennium later to source this article as well as it is indicates that he received more than enough coverage in his own time to meet notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—subject is notable as both mayor and prominent trader, per the non-genealogical and undisputedly reliable sources. The nominator's argument the two are separate, based on assertions such as "a former mayor will not have been called a yeoman" invokes a subject-expertise I am not willing to grant, based on edit history alone (we have nothing else to check). That issue is anyway something to be discussed on the article's talk page first. If the consensus is to remove some material because of the issue, then after the material is removed, an AfD on notability might be appropriate. As things stand, the contents prove notability and the article should hence be kept. Churn and change (talk) 18:58, 19 September 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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania accent

AfDs for this article:

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

unreferenced for 7 years. and full of original research. a search on google scholar shows that this isn't really studied in linguistics. [44]. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Heavily flagged and for understandable reason, but THIS LINK indicates that the "Central Pennsylvania accent" is actually "studied in linguistics." Per the multiple academic studies cited in the piece, this passes as an encyclopedic topic covered by multiple, substantial, independent publications. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which of these specifically refer to Central Pennsylvania, you would expect it appear in google scholar or gbooks This search refers often to books using WP as a soruce.

Carver, Craig M. 1989. American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
De Camp, L. Sprague. 1940. Scranton Pronunciation. American Speech 15:368-372.
Kurath, Hans. 1949. A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kurath, Hans and Raven I. McDavid. 1961. The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Labov, William. 1991. The Three Dialects of English. In Penny Eckert, ed. New Ways of Analyzing Sound Change. New York:Academic Press, pp. 1-44.
Thomas, Charles K. 1958. The Phonetics of American English. New York

LibStar (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unclear. There are a couple research papers referenced in the link I cited. I'm just gonna snip in the Central Pennsylvania section from that so people can see what I'm on about:

"In his Word Geography (1949), Kurath uses the term "Central Pennsylvania" in table II (pp. 28-29) as a sub-region between "Western Pennsylvania" and the "Great Valley." Judging by the distribution of the terms he cites for this region, his notion of "Central Pennsylvania" corresponds precisely with mine; see especially (arm)load (fig. 73) and quarter till (fig. 44). But this same area was included within the territory of Eastern Pennsylvania in KurathÕs LAMSAS map; and the evidence for that inclusion is weak. Contemporary though less scrupulous research by Thomas (1958), includes Central PA within the Western Pennsylvania area; this conclusion is more easily justifiable, since both areas share the merger of O and AW. Carver (1989) shows that the area of heavy Pennsylvania German lexical influence extends into Mifflin, Juniata, Perry, Cumberland, and Franklin counties, perhaps including portions of Huntingdon and Fulton. Yet is also possible to see the Pennsylvania German lexicon gradually dissipating as it extends westward, without any clear demarcations. One researcher has proposed a "Bedford" subarea, which would involve Blair, Bedford, western Huntingdon, Fulton, and perhaps also portions of Somerset counties, which lack a heavy concentration of Pennsylvania Germanisms and also lack many typically Western Pennsylvania terms (Ashcom 1953)."

From this we can see that there are clearly academic studies out there dealing with the Central Pennsylvania dialect. (Is this article mistitled? Maybe...) Carrite (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania dialect turns up only 1 gscholar hit. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Carrite. This one of many articles started, but never finished and seriously needs help from an expert. Unfortunately, too many experts avoid the often byzantine rules and editors of Wikipedia. And that is my opinion only. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment a search of US universities reveals hardly anything too [45]. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost entirely OR. Time for TNT. --No unique names 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it gets cleaned up and referenced with reliable, scientific sources (not things like newspaper articles and books written to amuse tourists, but actual linguistics books and articles) by the time this AFD is over. Several years ago I worked pretty hard to bring Northeast Pennsylvania English up to encyclopedic standards, but I don't have the time or Sitzfleisch to do it again for this article. Angr (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though possibly move and certainly clean up. Kurath and McDavid, as well as Labov, Ash & Boberg actually do refer to central Pennsylvania (at least according to Google Books; I haven't got either volume in front of me). I don't think its received nearly the sociolinguistic attention western Pennsylvania has, but it has been described. Cnilep (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Normal editing can fix this one; it's not such a mess that it requires WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If notability has been established and the only issue is a need for cleanup, then it should not be deleted. It can be cleaned up now or whenever, messiness is not a deletion criterion. ZX95 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 20 September 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 DELETED. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

郑连杰

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

this's a chinese title Cwek (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ENGLISH. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a duplication of zh:郑连杰. The whole article is in Chinese. If someone wants to translate the article into English, the Chinese version will still be around for them to refer to -- on the Chinese Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 12 September 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 Izmir#Sports. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izmir Derby

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

I found one reference, http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/dec/06/theknowledge.sport , which was more about this article than the event. The Turkish article is even unsourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best this could be a mention or side note within the article Turkish Football Federation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Izmir#Sports and merge there if sourced. Giant Snowman 07:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Izmir#Sports per GiantSnowman as it's a possible search term. It hasn't received enough coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a standalone article. – Kosm1 fent 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Izmir#Sports per GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:11, 17 September 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.