Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 13#Authoring language

< 12 October	14 October >

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings

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

This article does not attribute any article-specific information to reliable sources. The only attributed information here is to the Elo system, not to the self-styled "World Football Elo Rankings".

This article is filled with nothing apart from a brief description of Elo and original research. The entire article is based off of a website that somebody just created and an advertisement of that website. It is the epitome of self-created material.

The article does not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. Anyone can create a ranking page for International Football teams, that doesn't make it notable. The Elo system needs variables like the k-factor put into it, variables that have been put in by this person that created the page. Many people would for example question his counting of international friendlies. It is completely arbitrary and completely original research.

Even if you like the site, it is not notable and should not be on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source or show why the site is notable, go ahead and do so. Otherwise the article should be deleted.

Again, it doesn't matter whether you like the site or not. I could create a site tomorrow (or give me a few days) with a similar Elo system but that is different in several ways. Would that site be just as notable as this one and get a page also? It's absurd. Anonywiki (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a frivolous request. If you like to see better references, please ask for those on the page first before requesting to delete the subject from wikipedia.

The Elo ratings are not just anyone's personal opinion about who the best team at the moment is, but were a serious attempt 14 years ago to apply a rating system similar to that used in chess and go to international football teams (recently it has been applied for club football as well). For several reasons, luck probably included, this method has become widely known: it is the only rating consistently named besides the FIFA rankings. Check for example the Football rankings website, a site for hard-core association football rankers, where Runyan's Elo ratings get almost as much discussion as the FIFA ratings. A 2009 article entitled A critical survey of football rating systems in the series "Science and football", compares the ratings used for all kinds of football leagues (rugby, college football, etc.); one for each, except for international football where both the FIFA and Elo rankings are assessed.

In the meantime, a "World Football Elo Ratings" Wikipedia page exists in 13 languages, the English page alone gets 20,000 visits per month when there are no major championships, and the template for the National football team infobox has contained places for Elo ranking and ranking history since 17 July 2006 (basically the same day that FIFA rankings were added). I can't figure out right now how to count the number of wikilinks to a page, but there are likely to be many hundreds to this one (there are 220 national team pages alone with a link). Deleting this page will cause a lot of unnecessary grief. Afasmit (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For reasons given by Afasmit--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above two examples of notability are a basic start, though the first is inaccessible. I think the most relevant issue is: Wikipedia:GNG. The first point is:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

ESPN is what I would consider a reliable source as per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. However it needs to be more than a one mention in one article. I am fine with keeping it if you can find multiple similar references.

The notability of it should also be worked into the article... eg. "World Football Elo Ratings has been mentioned on ESPN, abc and used on the website xyz", that is how websites get notable. Using the Elo system doesn't make it notable. Also the "History" section should be about the history of Football Elo Ratings, not Elo itself.Anonywiki (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reports on BBC Sport and The Guardian. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmorrison. Giant Snowman 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monash University. Since there is no much content, merge can't be done, redirect is the best option. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Publishing

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

Created by a user who is banned now and Monashpub who clearly is associated with the organisation, non notable and more like advertisement. Ray-Rays 23:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect I don't see any banned users, just an indef block based on a violation of username policy. That said, there is nothing here to justify a separate article for the publishing arm, it doesn't appear to be independently notable. Redirect without deletion to Monash University. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, given the large number of articles that exist in Category:University book publishers, there seems to be a precedent for permitting university publisher articles. The publisher has 32 books listed on Amazon USA, which means that it is by no means a fringe publishing house. The fact that it is currently a stub that is not very well referenced doesn't mean that it cannot be expanded, nor that it could easily be referenced. Give it a chance to be expanded I say. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:GNG--I find no useful WP:RS sources at all. Right now, the article is just a tiny bit about the University and an external link to the publisher's site, so a redirect to Monash_University or Monash_University#External_links, where it has a link, should suffice. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university. The university is certainly notable and important, but its press does not seem to be independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equivilus

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

Nonsense article. Equivilus is a term the author apparently made up. A Google search only gets the Wikipedia article. Prod contested by author, stating "Equivilus is a very new term..." • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as garbage (and feeble garbage at that). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:Patent nonsense. -- 202.124.75.166 (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Svensson (mixed martial artist)

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

A non-notable MMA fighter without a single fight for a top-tier organization. Fails WP:MMANOT. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator has it right--subject fails WP:MMANOT. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability or independent sources for this fighter. He clearly doesn't meet WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like another backyard MMA participant. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 09:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was some support for keeping the main article, but unfortunately the vast majority of that appears to be copied and pasted straight from the organisation's website Black Kite (t) (c) 05:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Fighting Championship Africa

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

This article is about a relatively new MMA organization. There's a lack of significant reliable coverage and no indication that its events are notable. It also lacks notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these articles are anything but routine sports reporting. None of the events received significant coverage and all lacked notable fighters.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Events are full of non-notable fighters and fail WP:EVENT. No indication the promoter is widely known or regarded. Seems like a training ground for South African fighters. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all fail WP:ORG and WP:SPORTSEVENT . LibStar (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company article - Found some stuff about the company on a quick Google [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - enough to make me think a longer search would pull up more and that the company has notability in Africa. I think there's a reasonable case the company in itself has had coverage in multiple sources. The fact that these are predominantly African-based sources and not the New York Times should not be a factor (see WP:BIAS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleta all The events are clearly not notable. I don't see significant coverage of the organization (most of it is more event PR). They haven't been in business long and they have no notable fighters. When I look at WP:MMANOT I don't think they meet the notabiliity criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company, strong delete the events. Suriel's refs seem are helpful but unconvincing, on the whole--too WP:ROUTINE or insubstantial. If this really is tip of the iceberg, and someone can find more of the iceberg, would be happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company article - While each individual event doesn't carry the weight of significance, EFC Africa is holding its 11th event on 2011-11-10. This series of events is the largest in South Africa, and has grown to live coverage in a national cinema chain as well as two satellite television channels in the region.briantw (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I trust the research of these 4 editors. Shii (tock) 05:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North County Fight Club

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

Not a notable organization. No independent sources provided to prove otherwise. Notability of training organization is not inherited from its members. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only 2 notable fighters (according to WP:MMANOT) associated with this defunct organization. I also found no significant coverage of the club on its own. Mdtemp (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with the nom in that I believe trainers can become notable from the fighters they train (e.g., Angelo Dundee, Cus D'Amato, Gil Clancy). However, that notability stems from a long career and success with many fighters. This club/team didn't last long and two successful fighters is not enough, especially when there's no indication that this team was responsible for the fighters' success. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general assessment. What I meant was that the Wikipedia standard of notability would require that there be independent coverage of the organization, apart from sources about the individual fighters. Articles about the fighters with only a passing mention of the org won't cut it. This doesn't change the fact that this org isn't notable. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant independent coverage, just passing mentions in articles related to the two UFC fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion concerns have been met. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Play series

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

can't tell if this is real or not as there is no proof IchibanAlHablo (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Definitely a real, long-running series. That article is certainly a mess though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Series were premier baseball video games, akin to Madden, FIFA and NHL series. 65.185.130.126 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination is just based on questioning the existence of the game, then definitely keep, as this is definitely real, although of course the sourcing concerns need to be addressed. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator has been doing hoaxes on wiki pages including this one. Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckoo clock in culture

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

Spammy, poorly sourced. Boils down to "This work has a cuckoo clock in it" without any coherence, context or relevance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A cultural icon, so it is worth documenting as such. Parts of the article need work, but it seems decent enough. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work? What kind of work? Could you be any more vague? No, the problem here is that it's synthesis. All of the sources mention that yes, this has a cuckoo clock in it, but there's no common thread. None of the sources prove that the clocks are being used for something significant. They're just there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're here to discuss deletion; not the specifics of how the article needs to be improved. If you want those, have it reviewed. Applying WP:SYNTH here seems like a stretch. RJH (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with R.J. here. This is a question of whether this is an unsourced original essay (it isn't), whether it's off-the-wall unencyclopedic original research (it isn't), whether it's an encyclopedia-worthy topic (debatable), and whether it represents a content fork of cuckoo clock (also debatable). It's very fan crufty, in the way that innumerable Wikipedia articles about popular culture are, as the nominator is no doubt aware. And, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF means that is neither here nor there in the concrete question of whether this should be deleted or retained. But arguing for deletion on the basis of the arcane WP:SYNTHESIS guideline doesn't seem on the mark to me. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but OR. EEng (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains WP:OR and not well sourced - this could be fixed natch, but the subject is indiscriminate and trivial. If the cuckoo clock is (as stated)"often featured in literature, music, cinema, television, etc.", "more than any other kind of timepiece", then how are individual occasions notable? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though as you'll see above I agree this article should be deleted, it's worth pointing out that not everything discussed in a given article needs to be notable -- only the subject of the article needs to be notable. For example, an article on a notable writer might list all of his books, even though some of those books might not themselves be notable. EEng (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree insofar as it relates to WP:POPCULTURE sections/articles. As these are essentially lists of what could be considered trivia, every single "cultural reference" should be meaningful and referenced - Star Wars being parodied in Family Guy would be fine but Rush Limbaugh being mentioned by Jesse Ventura on WCW Worldwide would be trivial. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're disagreeing with. All I said was that article content need not itself be notable. I didn't say that everything (notable or not) related to a given article's topic should be in that article, nor that certain classes of content shouldn't have guidelines for deciding whether individual bits of content in that class should be included. That said, I'm not sure offhand why SW-FG is more worthy of inclusion than RL-JW, but maybe you know more about that stuff than I do. EEng (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was disagreeing with "it's worth pointing out that not everything discussed in a given article needs to be notable". - no, it's not worth pointing out at all as it has no relevance to the article being discussed. I think I explained quite clearly why articles of this type should contain solely notable information. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are an important route by which editors learn their way around Wikipedia policies, and your original statement was easy to misconstrue as meaning that article content, in general, must be notable. Thus I think it was worth pointing out. So there! EEng (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree.

Well I disagree with your disagreement!

Well I disagree with your disagreement with my disagreement!

Well you should know better than to put a quotation in quote marks and italics!

Well you're being very disagreeable!

^{Well I want to have the last word!}

^{Well I won't let that happen!}

^...

Anyone who misconstrued my meaning is an idiot. Kthxbai ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, how quickly the true colors are revealed. EEng (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My true colours have been evident for a long, long time. (Per WP:LASTWORD: "Getting the last word means that you win the debate. It also shows your moral superiority, and willingness to stand your ground. This should convince your opponent that you are correct, and will certainly impress your fellow Wikipedians") ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indiscriminate list of trivial mentions with little reliable sourcing and no encyclopedic value. Looks like compiler put anything they could find from Google searches on the list. No context and no sources to gauge relevance or significance by. I don't see much hope for this ever becoming a useful article, no matter how much work is done to improve it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In its current state, this long list is not easy to defend. But there is a legitimate topic buried in there. Without spending too much time thinking about it, I can name at least two 20th-century literary uses of the cuckoo clock that rise to the level of essential content--that is, our coverage of the subject of "cuckoo clock" would be remiss without some mention of them, somewhere. The first, of course, is The Third Man, which is actually discussed and sourced here. The second, which (tellingly) isn't even in the current list, is in Ulysses (Episode XIII): this "cuckold" clock is the subject of extensive commentary (306 hits at GBooks,[8] 292 at GScholar[9] for the search string <"cuckoo clock" Ulysses>). Now, maybe we don't need an entire separate "in culture" article to cover these; maybe a merge into a compact section of the cuckoo clock article would take care of it. But I can't agree that the topic is hopeless.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Arxiloxos; it's not completely worthless, but it needs more trimming down. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arxiloxos does make a good point. I wasn't convinced before, but after reading his argument, I went and did some searching. Google news archive search for "Cuckoo clock" "film" and you'll see ample results. [10] Other mentions of cuckoo clocks used in various films, some of the results notable. The New York Times has a bit stating the cuckoo clock is "among Switzerland's significant contributions to Western culture" [11] Dream Focus 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any significant type of item of this sort can justify an article, if people are willing to look for sources. I think we have just enough to keep this--though of course it needs to be edited, need for editing is not a reason for deletion, or we'd be left with very few articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs slicing and dicing to detrivialize the piece and improve sourcing, but this does seem an encyclopedic topic, in my opinion. Yes, it's pop culture fan cruft. We should embrace pop culture fan cruft, it's part of what makes Wikipedia an invaluable resource. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of relevant sources available, many not yet added of course. Searching "cuckoo clock" + "metaphor" is worthwhile, turning up such sources as this, this, this, and this to mention just a few. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Rush Boys (1983 film)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No reliable sources. The article claims the film's notability rests on "its attention to period costumes and furnishings," a thin and unsupported claim, even for a porn film. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see anything in the article that meets notability guidelines. All I could find with google was one short (4-sentence) review from what looks to be a website related to TLA Releasing; not enough in my opinion to count as "significant coverage in reliable sources".--Beloved Freak 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable to distinguish this film from the other mountains of mountains of such gay porn films, and during that era.Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ghits are to WP and mirrors, sales sites, and pirate sites. Thin Imdb entry with no external reviews listed, and I can find none, either. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krychun Lyudmila

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

(PROD contested with no reason given.) No evidence of notability. There are no inline references, and every one of the external links has one of the following reasons for not counting as a source for notability purposes: (1) does not mention her at all; (2) a listing page with just a list entry mentioning her or her work; (3) download page with download links for a couple of her papers, but no other mention of her; (4) non-independent source (e.g. web page of the university where she works) with only a brief mention of her. Everything I have been able to find about her by searching is of a similar nature, or else is an unreliable source (e.g. the page about her on Ukranian Wikipedia, of which this article is a translation). Everything I have seen is consistent with the impression that she is an ordinary academic who comes nowhere near to satisfying either the general notability guide or the guide to notability of academics. Technically qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement, as it is an unattributed translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, but I thought it more constructive to allow a chance for others to express opinions. (Although it is not a reason for deletion, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the Ukrainian Wikipedia article was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. It was recreated, and tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. The speedy deletion tag was then removed by the same editor who has posted a translation to English Wikipedia.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If the article is kept, it should be renamed from Krychun Lyudmila to Lyudmila Krychun, as Lyudmila is her first name and Krychun her surname. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the very-well reasoned nom. It's not a copyvio, though, as the Ukrainian WP is published under a CC license (all that is needed to solve the copyright problem is placing the appropriate tag on the talk page indicating that this is a translation). However, as there is no chance that this is going to be kept, the issue is academic. --Crusio (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Technically it is a copyright infringement in its present form, but I accept that that could easily be put right, so I was wring to suggest it could have been speedily deleted. However, that is really irrelevant, as nobody is actually suggesting speedily deleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. The subject appears to be a docent, roughly equivalent to a reader in the English university system or an associate professor in the US. It would be unusual, although not impossible, for an academic at that level to pass WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Docent article says that "Docent is the lowest academic title that confers the right to teach at the university". That is far below the rank of Reader in the British University system. The latter corresponds more to the rank of tenured Professor in the US system. My impression is that the subject holds a low academic rank but, of course, academic rank (apart from a named Professorship) is not relevant to notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Our article is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Ukraine, but the German system is described more or less correctly. There, anybody, even students, can teach at a university, but only if supervised by somebody who has the venia legendi (right to teach, don't know if that is the actual translation). A dozent has a "habilitation" and has (in addition) obtained the venia legendi and therefore has the right to teach, even though not occupying a position as assistant professor or higher. Their actual academic position may be way below that. So Dozent is an academic title (like the PhD) and not a job description. Whether things are the same or different in Ukraine I do not know. --Crusio (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any direct experience of Ukraine, but did spend some time at a university in Belarus when both countries were part of the Soviet Uniion. A docent there was a job title senior to a lecturer, but junior to a full professor. Anyway, I think the distinction is irrelevant here because we are all agreed that the subject's position is well below the level at which we presume notability on its basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. It's possible that the evidence exists and that we haven't found it only because of the language barrier, but unless something concrete turns up we have no basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying in Early Childhood

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

Written like a how-to guide rather like an encyclopedia. Prod declined. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How-to manual on teaching children honesty. Undoubtedly the topic is notable but there's not a scrap here that would be used in an actual article. EEng (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - Article is an essay and could not be turned into an encyclopaedic entry. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only a part of the article (the section "Ways to Discourage Lying") is howto. The topic is encyclopedic, and has been discussed in several scholarly papers and books in the context of developmental psychology and law (children as witnesses). See Lying in Early Childhood#Further_reading for examples. This article can be cleaned up, better sourced and turned into an encyclopedic piece titled something like "Lying in Childhood". utcursch | talk 12:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems obviously worthy of an article. Honestly (:D), I don't even see why a section on "Ways to Discourage Lying" violates WP:HOWTO. The subject of the article is the lies told by very small children. An article on the subject that didn't mention efforts to discourage this behavior would seem incomplete. If this seems inherently non-neutral or prescriptive, what to do about articles about murder or burglary? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Murder and Burglary explains the topic of "murder" and "burglary", but this isn't a topic, it rather explains how and why people lie, and what you can do about it. I'm surprised you think that even the "Ways to Discourage Lying" section is not written like a how-to manual. WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:CIR. Thanks. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay. The entire article is sourced to a web site of no particular authority and a children's magazine supplement for parents. These are not RSs. The bibliography lists good sources, but most of them are not about early childhood, but the more specific problem of children -- mostly older children -- testifying in court. I see no evidence they have been used for the article. My impression is that this is a rather low quality term paper, not an encyclopedia article. An article can be written, but it would mean starting over from scratch. (In my experience, a title with each word inappropriately capitalized is 1/3 of the time Spam, 1/3 a school essay, and 1/3 an editor who is new to Wikipedia. That last third need only to be improved, but the others need to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I cant see how a redirect to La Dispute is appropriate here, although I'm not prejudiced to someone else doing it. v/r - T P 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Whittemore

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

Kevin Whittemore has never been examied closely for his work in La Dispute, he also has done nothing as notable outside of La Dispute. The only sources on this page verify his work on those releases, not even sourcing content. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no history of success as a solo performer or work with multiple notable bands. Fails at WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. Just gets stray mentions within reviews and other pieces about his band, which has its own WP article. He himself fails WP:GNG. Redirect to La Dispute. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bullet for My Valentine. Per WP:MUSICBIO (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tuck

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

Matt Tuck has gain no notability outside of Bullet for my Valentine, there is only four sources on this article, one is last.fm and another is a facebook community page, which is wikipedia text on facebook, unreliable and circle sourcing don't count for anything. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bullet for My Valentine. Per WP:MUSICBIO: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." At this time, I don't believe he meets that criteria, as I'm finding no significant coverage demonstrating individual notability. Gongshow ^Talk 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THIS DOES NOT NEED DELETED, DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.153.57 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have to agree with Gongshow, a redirect here makes a lot of sense. Usual Caveats apply, as... well, as usual. If the subject's solo career takes off, then an individual article might be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not seem to be separately notable from his band. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and Pop Culture In the United States

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

Apart from a couple of dictionary definitions and a list of links, the only content is two unsourced sentences with more the character of the beginnings of an essay or personal reflection than an objective article. (PROD contested by author without any reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Random list of links. EEng (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Random list of links and unimportance. Ray-Rays 23:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
Keep (for now): If you look at the history on this article it has been put up for AfD less than 24 hours into its existence. I will agree based on its current status, the article is by no means ideal, and if had sat like this for a few months AfD might be the right option - but just because the article is currently a list of links, does not mean we need to bite the newbie while the article is still being worked on. Notwithstanding, a quick google search shows that the University of Tennessee, the University of North Florida and Old Dominion University were all able to have full term classes on the subject, so I would presume there are more sources that can used. For example, MIT had a 2 hour lecture (and has linked additional materials) on the subject, SUNY has published 222 page book on the subject as well - so there are sources out there that can make the article worthwhile.

Disclosure: I am the Campus Ambassador for the students who have worked on this article, for their class and would like to give the students a shot at making the article worthwhile. Epistemophiliac (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that you're trying to bring in new young editors, and I don't want them to be discouraged. The problem is that this is an enormously broad topic, and while it's usually OK for an article to start as a stub and grow with time, in this case it really has to start with a sensible overview of the topic at the high level, and then gradually add lower-level detail. If you start at the low level with examples and nothing tying them together, it looks like an awful mess with no cohesion. The problem is compounded by the liklihood that lots of people will be quick to point out perceived balance problems -- "liberal point of view", "conservative point of view", etc., which is all the more reason that article has to have a careful overview from the very start.

Let me suggest that your team develop the article offline and then submit it. You might be able to borrow some structure from the SUNY book you mentioned for your overview -- with attribution of course if you use it in detail. Unfortunately, in the meantime the article probably has be deleted in its current form. If the topic were narrower I might try to write a new stub myself to get you started, but I don't know how I'd even start in this case.

EEng (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with you here, if the article was "Politics and Pop Culture" by all means it would be very broad, but in this case it was already broken down to the US specifically - and if broken down even more would start to get silly. At the same time, if the article was purely developed offline so to speak, and then dumped on to the main-space, we would then find people complaining the article was written without any consensus by the community (due to the potential for having a conservative/liberal slant).

Overall, what I am trying to get at though, is yes it's not an easy topic to break down, nor is it the easiest of topics to stay neutral on - BUT there is a group of three students committed to improving this article (in fact its an assignment where they will need to find 1500 words of valuable information to add to it by Oct 24th) - so if by the end of the month they are unable to make it happen, I will support the deletion. BUT till then give them ~2 weeks to see if they can make something out of it, before hastily deleting it. Epistemophiliac (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting to US only takes this from a completely impossible project to only which is merely overwhelming. Make a start offline, take whatever that produces and userfy it (ask if you don't know what that means) and get other editors to help you develop it there, and THEN when there's a general feeling it's ready take it to mainspace. You'd be lucky to get to that point in several months even with many helping, but as long as it stays in userspace it's safe against deletion (and generally people won't be motivated to gripe about perceived biast etc), though less visible and so people aren't going to help unless you recruit them. I agree with P.B.'s comments below. EEng (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, like many of those created by these campus ambassador programmes, is clearly an essay topic rather than a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. There's no point in giving students "a shot at making the article worthwhile" when it will be deleted anyway, not because of any failure of the students but because it is an unsuitable topic. Better that this should be deleted now and that they should find proper encyclopedic topics to write about rather than spend weeks or months on this and only then have their work deleted. I'm seriously concerned that we seem to have many of these so-called "campus ambassadors" who don't understand what topics are suitable for an encyclopedia. This whole programme needs a serious rethink. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is losing battle so be it, but I still believe that we need still need to Assume Good Faith, or if need be Ignore The Rules and give new editors a chance to create something, before presuming guilt.

And one last thing, please do not resort to backhanded personal swipes - it makes you look petty and in this case, I find your comment to be both rude and personally offensive. Epistemophiliac (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing personal or backhanded in what PB said. He's right. You have an official role [12] in the Campus Ambassador's program, yet seem to have a poor understanding of what constitutes an acceptable article. EEng (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is less discouraging to new editors if a few days' work gets deleted than if a few months' work gets deleted, which is the choice here? To criticise your programme is not a failure to assume good faith, rude or personally offensive. Do you have any idea how much volunteer time has been taken up cleaning up after some of the recent programmes of the India Education Project, largely caused by the failure of campus ambassadors to give good advice on topic selection? Let's learn from those mistakes rather than repeat them in other parts of the world, and get students improving our existing articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I may have been a little rash and for that I apologise, but the underlining tone sounds like a personal attack - and I should have followed my own advice, and presumed good faith on your part. Epistemophiliac (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure: I'm one of the online ambassadors for the course in question. The article is no doubt in a very poor state right now, and I agree that the student should not have placed such a weak draft into mainspace yet, but the topic itself seems clearly notable to me, and that's what we are debating here. AFD is not cleanup; the question is whether the topic is a valid one for an article. A short search finds this: "For more than a decade, scholars from various academic professions have been turning in increasing numbers to the historical study of the connections between politics and popular culture." That's from Popular Culture and Political Change in Modern America, by Ronald Edsforth and Larry Bennett, published in 1991. I'll see if I can find a sensible sentence or two to place at the top of the current article to make it clearer what the topic of the article is, but the notability of the topic should not be in question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of sourced sentences to the first paragraph to outline the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe userfy) This is yet another student coursework article, and like the rest of them, it's problematic. However we shouldn't be overly harsh to students unfamiliar with WP who've been asked to dive in from scratch and write an article on a named topic, a topic that many WP editors would shoot on sight for being inherently subjective. I would ask the community to be lenient here: not to relax our standards for the finished product, but at least to give the editor time and assistance to understand how things work here, in the hope that we can achieve a result meeting both the course goals and WP standards.

Otherwise, let someone whose first new article was better than this get to delete it! I'm not going to put myself forward. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I"m a bit torn on the deletion of the article itself, as, given the title of the first reference, it seems like there may possibly be a notable topic buried underneath the essay that is currently there, and thus it may be possible to stub this and restart. But I strongly urge the closing admin to completely disregard all of the arguments relating to who created this article. The course programs already explicitly state in their rules that the students' articles are subject to all of our policies. In fact, given that these articles are being written with guidance from in-class campus advisors, and the fact that the students have access to dedicated online mentors, it seems to me that we should expect these articles to be better than usual new articles. Unless the program can get some sort of community wide consensus that articles made by Campus Outreach participants don't have to follow the same rules that every other new editor has to follow, we cannot allow this issue to effect editing decisions, including deletion discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your point is correct, and ideally we would have followed it. However the situation we're now in is that lots of student effort (and volunteer effort to clean up!) has already gone in a direction that is less than ideal. The question of what we should have done is moot, the only question left is what we do next. I don't wish to punish students for a failure by their course organisers any more than I absolutely have to, so as to restore a clean encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This topic appears to be legitimate, but the actual content of the article is currently very superficial. If the students working on this article are capable of getting this article up to Wikipedia standards, they can do so while the article is in userspace and then bring it back to the mainspace once they have made their improvements. I don't think userfication would be harsh or a punishment; I think it's a reasonable way to resolve the article's problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I am not sure whether the students responsible for this article are even aware of this AfD. They have been notified on their user talk pages, though. It appears that none of them have edited Wikipedia since this AfD was posted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Give the students a chance to learn through practice using the user space first after reading the core content policies three or four times. Yet even after doing that, it still takes time to write an article that fits current Wikipedia standards. It's still about continuous improvement, I guess. They have to find a new encyclopedic topic though. Through practice and time, these students will be great at this considering their potential. Pmresource (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems notable, and the article is at the very least stubish. Needs a move per WP:CAPITALIZATION after this discussion is done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now deleted that part of the article which is in outline format, as it has no real content. One of the campus ambassadors has placed a copy of the original version of the page in a sandbox for the students. The current version seems to me to be an acceptable stub. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAs need to remember that userfication of articles should be done by page moves, not by copying - otherwise we lose the attribution history for previous editors. This isn't much of an issue here, but it becomes particularly important for articles pre-existing before the students hit them. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for this one, it might be an issue. The professor might want to know which of the three students wrote which parts of the article, and if part of the attribution history is lost (as is the case with User:Caseydud/Sandbox), the professor won't be able to find that information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the CA know about the reason for doing a page move, but I suspect it doesn't matter: it would be a rare professor who had the time to use the page history to make a detailed analysis of authorship. I imagine the groups are graded on the outcome overall. I also don't see how userfication can be done by a move unless the outcome of the AfD is delete; surely if the article is kept the page history stays with it, and then there's no way for the students to work on an independent copy with the same history? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Userfying is, essentially, moving to userspace without leaving a redirect from the mainspace. The standard procedure for userfication would consist of (a) moving the existing Politics and Pop Culture In the United States to a user subpage (such as User:Caseydud/Politics and pop culture in the United States), and (b) deleting (or not creating in the first place) the redirect that would result from the move. The user subpage would keep the edit history of the original article, and students would be able to work on the user subpage, with the potential of eventually moving it back to the mainspace (and still keeping the entire page history). Meanwhile, after the move, anyone who went to the mainspace page Politics and Pop Culture In the United States would receive the warning "A page with this title has previously been deleted" and see the log entry showing that the page had been moved to User:Caseydud/Politics and pop culture in the United States without redirect. Since the whole edit history would be kept in the userfication, the existing attempt to "cut and paste userfy" the article at User:Caseydud/Sandbox could be abandoned and deleted; the version at User:Caseydud/Politics and pop culture in the United States would be the properly userfied one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, keeping the editing history intact would not be for the benefit of instructors marking the work, which is none of our concern here, but for compliance with our copyright licence, which requires attribution to all the authors of content, whether contained in main space articles or in user space. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'm skeptical that this article could ever be anything other than an essay, but I don't think userfying it in the off-chance that its author could bring it in line with our policies would hurt anything. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hurt

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

Article fails WP:GNG in the absence of significant coverage, and fails WP:NSPORT as the footballer in question has only ever played in Estonian, which does not have a fully pro league, and in the Hungarian second division. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he played 8 games for Nyíregyháza Spartacus FC in 2009/2010 NBI. ~~Source~~ New link --Lipik (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide another source, because the one you've given above is a blank except for the words "0 seconds" Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link. The other one doesn't work for me either at the moment. HLSZ --Lipik (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I withdraw my nomination, as he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof (12 Stones song)

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

Delete. A PROD and redirects have been reverted, but this song is not notable and the article offers no indication of notability. There are no sources that give this song any reason for an article, completely failing general notability requirements and WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little more than a discography entry masquarading as an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Richhoncho (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Only Human (12 Stones album) possibly. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please explain why you want to merge that. Fails WP:NSONG--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Song fails WP:GNG and has not charted. Album from which it originates should not even have an entry, as it seems to be several months away from releasing, if it does not get delayed again and if it even achieves notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. After the article was rewritten, it appears that WP:HEY now applies. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole cosmology

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

Contested PROD. The article goes against WP:NOTESSAY and is composed of mainly original research – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- With the rewrite, I am now more than willing to keep this article. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, probably WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE...ai yi yi... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this was quite an interesting topic, and should either be kept or merged and redirected to either black holes or cosmology. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how it's not WP:OR and WP:ESSAY? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - By my reading, Aceo isn't saying anything about the article content. It appears to be a comment about the topic, which I agree is interesting. Certainly a redirect would mean deleting the content. I think the merge proposal is highly problematic. Jojalozzo 20:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The keep proposal is highly problematic, too, unless someone does a substantial rewrite. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely right. I skimmed over that little word. Joja lozzo 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Bushranger. Not encyclopedic. I suggest starting over with a basic stub and enlisting experienced collaborators to help make it an encyclopedic article rather than one editor's project. (see below) Joja lozzo 19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said, per WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree the article needs to be completely rewritten, both for clarity and for a neutral point-of-view, the topic is notable and the references given are serious and reliable sources. --Lambiam 22:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support paring it back to a lead sentence stub so we keep the topic, but I think the content that we have now is an inappropriate starting point. Joja lozzo 00:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I've just replaced the old text by an entirely fresh new stub. --Lambiam 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  However, an anon (presumably the same as the original creator, who has a COI) has now appended the whole old rambling essay to that stub. It may indeed be better then to delete the whole thing. --Lambiam 14:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub per Lambiam. It is indeed a notable topic, and reliable sources exist. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the rewrite has been done, and topic is notable, then we should keep the article, and ensure that mess of crap doesn't get appended again. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect - This topic seems to be covered by third-party sources. Is it worthy of its own article? Perhaps not, but we could merge it into a new section on black hole or another related page and redirect to said section. Chris (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent rewrite. The topic is notable enough to deserve its own article. Regarding merges, that could be discussed through a merge proposal instead. →Σ τ c. 03:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a properly stubbed article on a notable topic. I wish it well. Joja lozzo 15:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not mainstream, but it is notable science. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XScreenSaver

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

Non-notable software. Refs are all to the software's site, external links are to the same and to two download locations. A search turns up lots of places to download it and a few mentions but no substantial coverage. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is a core part of the open-source Unix platform and is also highly notable for being the main FOSS contribution of FOSS superstar programmer Jamie Zawinski, one of the core originators of Mozilla and Netscape. To consider this as not notable betrays a grave ignorance of modern Unix, of FOSS and of contemporary OS software in general. Liam Proven (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did the Google searches you link above and found tens of third-party news (mostly from ten or so year ago, but nevertheless) and printed book sections concerning the program - considerable evidence it was noteworthy enough to note. Possibly Google has helpfully customised our searches differently - you might want to try those searches logged out. This stuff does, of course, need to go in the article, and I'll compile a list, put it on talk and put it into the article as appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, this appears to be the third article I ever wrote on Wikipedia: [13] So I'll try hard to make this one worth keeping! - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—It's sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Covered by many Linux and UNIX books. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This article has existed on Wikipedia for over 7,5 years. Why wouldn't it suddenly be noteworthy anymore? The deletion request follows the recent expansion of the article. I can't judge whether that expansion is correct or not, but it doesn't seem to justify deleting the whole article. The article exists in other languages as well; the French article going back as far as 2006. Fruggo (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is not a reason for keeping: it could be that it was created when standards were a lot more relaxed. It also means there's no argument that it should be given more time to improve. Other languages can and do have different standards. Notability means it has received coverage in reliable sources. There are none in the article, I did not find any and none have been mentioned or given in this discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne, your main argument is 'non-notable'. English isn't my first language, so we might have a misunderstanding here, but I interpret 'non-notable' as 'not important enough to have an article here'. I agree with you that longevity as such (and the existence of similar articles on other Wikipedia's) is not a reason for non-deletion as such; however it gives me reason to believe that others have found XScreenSaver to be important enough to be on Wikipedia. So, if others found XScreenSaver important enough, I'm curious why you find it not. Fruggo (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. the general notability guideline. Notability on Wikipedia means a topic is so much of interest outside of Wikipedia that it is discussed in detail ("significant coverage") by people who have nothing to do with it ("independent of subject") and who are of a high standing as sources ("reliable"). So e.g. the links to the official site in the article now are not independent. Whether editors like it is also not a reason to keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering and sophistry go well together. Eclecticology (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Freshmeat says "XScreenSaver is the standard screen saver collection shipped on most Linux and Unix systems running the X11 Window System. These screen savers also work on Mac OS." Well, they would say that wouldn't they, but XScreenSaver is a fundamental part of many (most?) users' Linux experience. I found the Freshmeat quote when I was looking for download statistics. I haven't found any, but it feels very strange to be defending an article about such a core feature. What's next? Keyboard? Tap water? --Northernhenge (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This book by Apress discusses matters arising from the development of the software. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical interest should not constantly be held hostage to deletionists' lack of judgement. Fixing something is more constructive than burying it. Eclecticology (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further: good to see support for the article's existence, but we do need refs in the article to make this abundantly clear. (I've been busy today learning how to handroll a deb. Owww.) Please to all getting editing :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as a person who knows fuck-all about the subject, I'm not in a position to dig up references, but I can still see value to the article. AFAIK there is nothing controversial about the actual content. Are there other sources that claim it to be wrong or misleading? Notability should remain a very low barrier to inclusion; higher barriers would still be available for what is said about something. If there is no article at all nobody can improve it, and it cannot grow naturally. Eclecticology (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it needs references. It seems there's good support for the article but so far there's been nothing to support the argument that it's notable. The two links posted here, [14] and [15], have just two sentences (copied in full above) and a few quotes from XScreenSaver's developer respectively, i.e. not substantial coverage and not independent. If it is notable it should be easy to find references, with substantial coverage, independent of the product, and from reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to close this as keep as it appears there is confusion in the nomination and this is a battle for the coverted unparanthesied title rather than an actual deletion rationale. v/r - T P 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Response Information Network

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

Emergency Response Information Network (ERIN) is a medical information holdings company, not a Hurricane TV channel on DISH network Erin1973 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I understand the nomination. Emergency Response Information Network is verifiably a hurricane TV channel. If there is a medical information holdings company by the same name that should be an article, then it can be created at a disambiguated title such as Emergency Response Information Network (company). -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about an actual mainstream TV channel on the Dish network. I don't see any reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Quest Overdrive

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant sources. This article fails the general notability guideline, which is not surprising considering the fact that this isn't a series in the regular sense; there have only been four "episodes," and all four aired on the same day. Neelix (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that not too much turns up in the usual searches, but given that this project is a part of the well-known Aqua Teen Hunger Force family, I'd be inclined to think that at least some of the verifiable content should be preserved somewhere; for example, merged back to the main article about the property rather than deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Only four episodes of the series have aired in a 4 am test-slot. When the full series premieres sources will likely turn up. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; a subject is not notable until a sufficient amount of information in reliable, secondary sources exists, not before. Considering the nature of this 'series', I think it unlikely that such sources will be developed. The real issue, however, is that they do not exist now. Reassessment can occur if and when more sources appear. Neelix (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire per Neelix above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'd really love to keep this article, there just isn't enough notability here at this moment to warrant keeping this article at this point in time per the Crystal Ball rationale that Neelix posted. There's nothing here that couldn't otherwise be mentioned via the ATHF article. When/if the series gets picked up for more episodes or gets more notice, then we can add the page back. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACG English school

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

A Google search returns no sources that seem to be third-party. Therefore, I'm proposing either the deletion of this page, or a merge back into the article of its parent (University of Auckland). Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC) In accordance with the above rationale I propose that these following two pages be deleted or merged too as search engines for both also don't have third-party sources:[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge back as per nom. Non-notable and possible COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as spam for a chain of language cram schools operating on college campuses. Does not qualify as a mainstream government high school or accredited independent high school teaching core subjects to Grade 12 or A-level.. Non notable per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following are also quite similar, so I'm also proposing their deletion or merging here:

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

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

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

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

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} 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all back to parent article. TerriersFan (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for all or merge all to parent article for now. While I couldn't find a lot in Google, I did find where at least one school (ACG Senior College) does prepare students for A-level exams. All of the schools go through level 13, which I assume is the equivalent to a United States 12th-grade diploma. While these schools are small and don't offer a lot in the way of sports or other news-making extracurricular activities that doesn't mean there isn't local, independent media coverage. For this reason I'd recommend merging rather than deleting so the article can be resurrected when easy-to-find (i.e. online) references become available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Davidwr and protect all redirects to prevent overspamming. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 09:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copy-and-paste spamming. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging or redirection. A careful reading of the article will reveal that it is not part of Auckland University, but merely "endorsed" by them; nor are they actually part of or affiliated with the Uni's own English Language Institute. Searching the University website finds them given a paragraph under the heading "Other English language courses in Auckland" [16] Not just spam, but spam intended to mislead without actually lying. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG excellent analysis. Secret ^account 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flintzel_Diao v/r - T P 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Diao (author)

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

I declined the speedy on this article because I feel it barely succeeds at making a claim of importance. However, this is a 13 year old kid who appears to have self published. Sources are "Post your own news", blogs, and school papers...and Wiki answers. Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. v/r - T P 14:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion - this appears to be an offshoot of Flintzel Diao, which was salted after an AfD discussion. None of the sourced provided are are from reliable sources - the "news" link appears to be a hoax, as it's from a user-generted "post your own news" site. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Business Contacts

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

Article is about an organisation that does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. I was able to find quite a few press releases, but no independent coverage. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is also advertising for a behind the scenes business: Ukrainian company that develops long-term partnerships and trade relations between Ukrainian companies and their foreign counterparts involving governmental authorities, financing and insurance organizations. The company works in the field of project finance, credit insurance, financial analysis, due diligence, market research and investment, implementing multifaceted projects both in Ukraine and abroad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical ecogeochemistry

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

Not notable new field of science. Just 53 hits on internet and exactly 0 (zero) on Google Scholar. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues! As this field is new and emerging, taking a strong transdisciplinary approach, it cannot be expected that there are many hits on google scholar. I therefore suggest not to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

here is one link to the leading marine research insitution world wide, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Insitute http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?litesiteid=29552&articleId=82168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here goes another article from Goldschmid Conference http://goldschmidt.info/2009//abstracts/finalPDFs/A1457.pdf

You can slo find the article "Eco-geochemistry: A new direction for geochemistry in China" by Xi, Xiaohuan; Li, Min Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Supplement, Volume 73, p.A1457 here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeCAS..73.1457X

I cannot see, why ist should not be possible to define new emerging things in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep but Move to Ecogeochemistry see my comment below. The term "Analytical ecogeochemistry" does indeed return 0 google scholar results. The term "ecogeochemistry", however, returns 258 hits [17]. Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new thing is "Analytical Ecogeochemistry", a scientific effort characterized by the development of analytical techniques, that steer ecological research, and vice versa. There is also "Analytical Biogeochemistry", "Analytical Geochemistry" etc. existing. I cannot see, why it is not possible to speak about the new field of "Analytical Ecogeochemistry", which has been well defined in its meaning in the article. — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment In which case there appears to be insufficient coverage in third party reliable sources at this time to support inclusion of the article under this title. Perhaps creating and expanding an article at Ecogeochemistry with a section on the new technique of analytical ecogeochemistry could be a compromise. But since the Ecogeochemistry article does't yet exist I can't see much alternative to deletion at this time. It's just too early. I suggest Wikipedia:Userfication until third party sources can be found. Polyamorph (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, possibly WP:TOOSOON? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a compromise I would agree to move the article to Ecogeochemistry, and keep the section on the new technique of analytical ecogeochemistry.

Probably userfication might also be an option...I am open for your suggestions. Anyway, the discussion clearly shows, that a publication laying down the principles of Analytical Ecogeochemistry has to be published at an international level. Please have a look on the final version of the wiki entry. I still think the contribution is absolutely worth publishing it.

Delete without prejudice towards recreation once a more substantial body of peer-reviewed work is published. --~T P W 23:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the number of articles with less support by literature and evidence in wikipedia, I suggest to keep this article. Geochemistry is well defined, as is Analytical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but every article is judged on its own merits. Comparing with other articles is useless, but normally it is taken as acknowledgement of lack of notability in its own right. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see. Thank you very much for that info. I was just wondering as I found many other articles when doing research for other topics with less notability...but anyway, a decision will be made soon. As I´m new to Wikipedia, it`s really interesting, how this whole process of discussion is organized.Unfortunately the Wiki documents to learn how the system works and is organized, are very huge and fragmented, so it is not very easy to understand all things going on.
  - True. So is one of the thing you can't find quickly how to sign your comments on talkpages (not articles!!). If you type four tildes (~~~~) the system will automagically replace this by your name, the date and the time.... (hint)
  - Many people make the mistake to make pages for something new (I made that mistake too) or to do announcements. In fact, the encyclopedia only wants articles about things that are more or less established. At least to have a significant number of reliable third party sources that makes clear that the subject is noteworthy. It is a bit of trial and error to find out if something qualifies or not. Often, you only know that while writing or after writing. So everybody will loose published articles or have been writing articles that will never be published. It is nasty, but don't bother too much about it. There are enough things out in the real world that are noteworthy and wait for an article. Keep up the good work! Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 in Tokyo Final 16 Qualifying GP

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

also nominating:

Another useless series of qualifying results with no third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC) LibStar[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This has to be the twentieth time a crop of these has turned up (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.) and almost every time they have been deleted following an overwhelming consensus to do so. Since the rationale is the same, I am fine with deleting these under the G4 (recreation of a deleted page) criterion. (Either this, or impose a community topic ban on those users to bar them from creating new K-1 related pages). There is no reason why the community should have to go through the same rigamarole over and over, only to meet the same inevitable conclusion. Neutrality^talk 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 Final or K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final, as appropriate. Those are the top events, and are therefore notable. Not only should this prevent recreation, but ANY yearly sub-tournament can be redirected to the final without involving AFD. Cheers, The Steve 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be on board with this - preemptively redirecting this flood of non-notable individual articles to the final article. Neutrality^talk 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Thesteve. --J (t) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as suggested; this may end the endless debate. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No merge, however, unless suitably condensed--WP is WP:NOT#STATS. We don't collect regular season baseball box scores & game summaries, etc. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 18:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean scandals

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

last AfD was hardly convincing. This is an indiscriminate list of political scandals, massacres and building collapses and news events with no criteria in how they make this list. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very objective, no criteria to make this list--Penom (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate and subjective in how it defines "scandal". How this passed the last AFD I am unsure. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into another page - Definitely it shouldn't be deleted, but it shouldn't be kept either... --J (t) 17:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you need to suggest a merge location, otherwise this is good as delete. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no theme on this page.Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunath Ratabole

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

PROD removed by article creator without addressing the problem. PROD reason remains: Recent graduate with inadequate record of publications for notability by WP:PROF or otherwise. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, the references are not independent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom, fails the professor test. Yunshui (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's very uncommon for someone this early in their academic career to have accumulated the impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1 or to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria, and I don't see anything in the citation record or elsewhere to convince me that this case is one of the rare exceptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ritchard

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

Fails WP:CRIN because he has never played at the top domestic level. His matches for the ACT Comets are all against 2nd XI and U/23 sides. Also, although he gets ~20 gnews hits, I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what's required to meet WP:GNG. Taking this to AfD rather than PROD because he did play a match for the Prime Minister's XI, which is not officially classified as first-class, but is still a pretty high standard of play. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Prime Minister's XI match is by itself insufficient to pass WP:GNG and subject fails WP:CRIN as established. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sissy DéBut

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

Singer-Songwriter. Unable to find any reliable sources about her. Article says her biggest hit was Amazing Grace. A google search of '"Sissy Debut" "Amazing Grace"' comes up with only Wikipedia hits. I can't find anything about her albums. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, no WP:RS. And, while not a reason to delete, you can be sure the wink-wink-nudge-nudge vandals would have a field day with her name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Edelson

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

Does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. I've stubbed the article because none of the sources supported any of the material. Some of it almost seemed like a joke, although I think the person exists. You're welcome to look at the version before I slashed it. Also, if you look back at the history of the article, which was created by a single purpose account, some of the material (no longer there) was truly weird, also almost like an unbalanced mockery. Bbb23 (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my search revealed little to nothing, a few mirrors of the version that was here before Bbb23 correctly trimmed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the earlier versions cited an article (published by Baltimore Chronicle) describing an incident over the removal of the painting 'Hitler in France' from the City Hall in Baltimore. It was covered also here and here (Baltimore City Paper). That's all I found, and I don't think that this single isolated incident is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is no indication of any notability, it's barely even a page.Vincelord (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. My thanks to the nominator for recommendation of the article history - I found the statement that the subject's "affinity for surrealism and disruption is apparent" to be ironic! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - previous revisions of the page that relate to apparent obsessions with shoes and NSFW photos of the subject's sister make me think this article is a hoax or piss-take page. Sooner gone the better in my estimation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename as Dolce Vito - Dream Restaurant. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Cataffo

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

Not notable as Vito has now died, appearing only in one TV show and leaving no discernable legacy Bleaney (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Dolce Vito - Dream Restaurant. Notability is not temporary, whether someone has died or has left a legacy are moot points here. Only that it is unlikely that much more information can or will be able to be added to the article in the future. Subject was at one time the focus of a major network's show that focused specifically on him and has the needed reliable sources. Calmer Waters 03:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all TV shows on a 'major network' are automatically notable, I doubt this aticle was ever met notability in the first place. Bleaney (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. All sources quote Channel 4. So it's a single source, quoted many times, pointing one event, and afterwards his death is covered again by Channel 4, associated with Channel 4. Perfectford (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.Vincelord (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as secondary sources re found; thus the above argument for WP:GNG does not apply. Notability is not a subjective measure. Can be assumed to be changed to delete if another violation of WP:GNG is found. — trlkly 12:35, 8 October 2011 (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} 08:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Dolce Vito- Dream Restaurant so more information can be given about the show itself, including a description on the programme, to provide more details and hopefully wider access to sources. As Vito Cataffo is the star of the show, his biography can be listed under this name, as most of the information can be linked to the show itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathmaur (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as Dolce Vito- Dream Restaurant--Cavarrone (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Full-Contact at WAKO World Championships 2007 Coimbra +70 kg

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

also nominating

this is scraping the barrel for notability, almost all participants are non notable. no way meets WP:SPORTSEVENT... in fact women's kickboxing gets next to nil third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Normally I would say world championship events are notable, but these articles lack sources and are about events with few competitors. For example, some fighters won medals without winning a fight. In addition, there were very few non-European fighters, making it more of a "European" championship than a "World" one. Astudent0 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:INDISCRIMINATE info, redundant to W.A.K.O. World Championships 2007 (Coimbra). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:39, 12 October 2011 (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} 08:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Procedural relisting as none of the "also nominating" articles had been tagged for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Given that we've got an article on the event itself, having an article for each class is excessive. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Genovese_crime_family#Soldiers. v/r - T P 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Aparo

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

Aparo does not pass WP:CRIME. Information on Aparo and his crime are found in the Genovese crime family#Soldiers section. Vic49 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should delete it Rogermx (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why would you create the article in the first place when you're suggesting that it does not meet the WP:GNG? 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty can change in nearly three years. I think we should commend Rogermx for being prepared to publicly change his mind, which all too few Wikipedia editors seem to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason has been given for why redirection wouldn't be a better option than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor gangster, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Genovese_crime_family#Soldiers, with more content from [18] Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2011 (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} 07:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Checked Google News - didn't look like he did anything else important. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the target linked in the nomination, merging any reliably sourced content if any of it isn't already in that article. Nobody in this discussion has given any reason why deletion would be better than redirection. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirection is not necessary, Aparo does not pass WP:CRIME. --Vic49 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't have to pass the guidelines/essays/etc., just point to where the person is mentioned. WP:CHEAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be useless, in the effort of cleaning up the wp crime related articles. Just Delete the junk the article is about a mid level mobster. --Vic49 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is coverage of this person in an article then a redirect is certainly not useless, because it helps our readers find that content. We base decisions on whether to have redirects on utility to our readers, not to editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genovese crime family#Soldiers - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRIME, minor criminal. --Cox wasan (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Author has requested the page to be deleted. Under G7 does that not mean case closed and the article may be deleted. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Montenegro. This discussion is on a redirect, not an article. Discussions on the appropriate target should take place at Redirects for Discussion. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Montenegrins

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

The article is not used and is linked only from a 2009 poll. The name is misleading, the properly named article on the same topic exists as History of Montenegro. As it follows from page history, the article was meant to preserve the information cleaned out from article Montenegrins for subsequent merge into History of Montenegro, which is now ~~finnished~~ finished. Czarkoff (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. If it's Finnish, how can it be Montenegrin? EEng (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, a wise guy, eh?!?" (double eye poke, noggin conk, nose grab). —Moe Howard. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a typo. Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a big deal of it, but you should not invisibly fix your own comments once posted, especially if others have responded to them, and your fix will render others' comments puzzling to later readers -- changing finnished to finished above has that effect. However, an OK way to do this is to use ~~strikeout~~ text -- which I used to "fix your fix" above. EEng (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, didn't think about that. Thank You for correcting that. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like this article got gutted on Oct. 25, 2010 — nearly a year ago. So let's just make it into a proper redirect and move along, eh? Carrite (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why redirect if nothing links there? At the same time the name is misleading and politically engaged, which provokes the policy breach.Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above.--Zoupan (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create Redirect to History of Montenegro --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If redirect is unavoidable, then Demographic history of Montenegro would be a way better end point. Still, as far as the scope of the word Montenegrin is a matter of politica debate, I strongly object using it unless it is unavoidable. This specificly applies to redirecting, which is in fact assumption of equality. Czarkoff (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Montenegro.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:55, 8 October 2011 (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} 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Montengro. It is far better to direct readers to where they want to be, rather than leave them with a redlink. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what redlink are You talking about? Nothing link there! Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neutrogena. v/r - T P 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neutrogena spokesmodels

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

Unsourced, non-notable arbitrary cruft list. Ukraine Calling (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced and unlikely to have any independent sources. Any notable spokesmodeling should be present at Neutrogena or at each respective spokesmodel's page anyway. §everal⇒|Times 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that guess seems to be incorrect. The article now does reflect independent sourcing (for some, though not all, of the material).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I rescind my vote. I mean, I still don't think it's a keep or anything. §everal⇒|Times 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Neutrogena. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate info. Nothing substantial to merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found and added these sources as inline citations in the article:

(February 10, 2009.)"EXCLUSIVE: Emma Roberts Named Neutrogena Brand Ambassador." People Magazine.
(February 11, 2010.) "EXCLUSIVE: Miranda Cosgrove is Neutrogena’s Newest Face!." People Magazine.
(January 30, 2009.) "{Natascha McElhone Is The New Neutrogena Spokes Model." Starpulse.com.

The people in the list appear to have been reported upon per WP:NLIST guidelines, and the list conforms to WP:LISTPEOPLE in the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...then Merge - To Neutrogena article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Neutrogena; the main article is none too substantial, and I'm unsure why anyone thought a spinoff list was necessary. Ravenswing 11:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources do cover who the spokesmodels are as a quick Google news archive check confirms. McElhone is new Neutrogena spokesmodel Daily Express, Kristen Bell is New Face of Neutrogena WTTG. Dream Focus 14:01, 12 October 2011 (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} 07:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of people paid to appear in commercials for a particular commercial product lacks encyclopedic value, except perhaps in unusual circumstances which must be supported by reliably sourced text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been found, there even headlines in major newspapers announcing when some famous model is made a Neutrogena spokesmodel. Dream Focus 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A famous person being named a spokesperson for the company does not mean that they are notable collectively. This is trivia, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names have references found already announcing them being made into spokesmodels. So the list is notable. And not every entry on the list need be sourced. Dream Focus 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant; as it may make the individuals notable, but not notable collectively. I don't really expect the ARS keep-everythingers to appreciate the distinction, though. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ravenswing. The content is significant as it reflects on Neutrogena's public identity; but no real need for a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Authoring system. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authoring language

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

Non-notable software stub. Marked for references and notability since May 2010. Contested prod. A number of researchers call their programming languages an "authoring language" (which seems to mean "a language something gets written in") but term is hugely problematic since the only widely-known "authoring language" is DIAL from the w3c, which isn't a programming language but a mark up language. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with authoring system. —Ruud 07:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: authoring system dates from February 2007‎, but has no references. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} —Ruud 08:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with authoring system. This is a long-standing term, and TUTOR (programming language) of course the historical important one. Not sure there are enough others to merit an article. W Nowicki (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with authoring system. Topic does not merit separate article. Please see WP:BEFORE section C.4 before nominating these for deletion. --Kvng (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Matanle

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

Subject has requested article be considered for deletion via OTRS The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party references, fails WP:PROF. The unencyclopedic tone could be dealt with, but even fixed up, this article wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Yunshui (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC). The unencyclopedic tone could be dealt with, but even fixed up, this article wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Yunshui (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Please delete this article from Wikipedia. Some years ago, on the advice of a publisher, I was urged to place an entry on Wikipedia. Lacking sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia I complied with this request. Occasional vandalism (such as is present right now) and false information being posted from time to time means I am no longer happy to have the article included. Although I might, just, qualify on one or other rule for inclusion as an academic WP:PROF, I don't believe that removing the article will be a detriment to public knowledge, as I am not a public figure in the way that other living persons and academics listed in Wikipedia might be. Thank you. Signed: Peter Matanle. WP:GNG. Kyogata (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2011 (UCT).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whimsical tone of the current entry is amusing but not close to what we need in an encyclopedia article, and there doesn't seem to be much basis in sources nor much support from WP:PROF for for fixing it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Before nominating this for AfD, it would have been good to peruse the edit history of this article. As Kyogata says, it was repeatedly and blatantly vandalized. I have removed as much as possible the vandalism. Matanle was "general editor" of the electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies (now listed as "publishing editor"). That journal currently has no article, but given how long it has been around, it is perhaps notable and in that case Matanle would be notable under WP:PROF#8. On the other hand, neither GScholar nor the Web of Science give much evidence of impact (both give an h-index of 3). Given the (at best) borderline notability, I think we should honor the subject's request voiced above. --Crusio (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, we received a request from the subject, he was given the options, he opted for AFD. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If I was in school in Sheffield I'd consider signing up for his course, but he's got little or no secondary coverage. EEng (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tiny presence on GS: far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SNOW (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgias Press

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

WP:NOTABILITY; no gnews hits beyond one-sentence mentions, generally noting them as publisher of a book. Sources currently on article include one such one-sentence mention, one two-sentence blog mention. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 19,900 references to their publications in GScholar and many internal links within Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there precedence that notability for publications should confer upon the publisher? I'm looking at WP:GNG, which says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and am unconvinced that addressing a publication, even in detail, is addressing the publisher directly. Listing of a publisher on a reference seems more like a database listing, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nat's comment above. Notability is NOTINHERITED - publishing a notable book does not confer notability on the publisher, in the same way that being published by a notable publisher does not confer notability on a book. Yunshui (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gorgias is a reputable academic press with excellent visibility in the academy, especially in the fields of Syriac, Aramaic, and other Biblical studies. The Gorgias Press entry should be filled out further to comply better with WP standards, but not deleted. --XKV8R (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WP is going to have articles on Brill, Eisenbrauns, Wageningen, and Eerdmans, then Gorgias should be welcome. --XKV8R (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but ITSNOTABLE and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not arguments for retention. Yunshui (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable academic publisher - I agree with XKV8R regarding their high profile in the field. The many Google scholar citations and publications also support a keep. First Light (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic Journals-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An academic publisher is typically notable precisely because it publishes notable books and authors; WP:NOTINHERITED is of limited applicability in such circumstances, and has been rejected as grounds for deletion in similar past AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other keeps. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other keeps aswell. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gorgias Press is indeed a notable academic publisher, especially in the field of Syriac Studies (in fact, one would be hard pressed to find a student of Syriac Studies who does not know of Gorgias Press). אמר Steve Caruso 04:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. This page is in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, and so its deletion should be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Real Madrid v.s Barcelona

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

Too short, written badly, and sounds like a debate:

Article Content: "Real Madrid is the powerful team not just in the europe but also the world...Barcelona is the best but not enough strong to beat Real Madrid..." BlowingTopHat (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. This page is in the Talk: namespace, and so its deletion should be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/FAQ

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

page is no longer needed Oldag07 (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator, only delete has also been withdrawn (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 23:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Heiman

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

This article violates the "Notability" guideline and the "No indication of importance" guideline. It is essentially simply self-promotion. There is some minor biographical information and lists of shows. The only sources listed are simply passing mentions of shows - nothing independent beyond a simple show review. Having shows and displaying works does not make an artist automatically notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsternis (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 October 2011‎ — Finsternis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - not notable, and not supported by the citations provided. It looks like pure self-promotion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cleaned up the article to be much less promotional. Her work is represented in the permanent collections of two notable museums and she just won a major prize; I think that's enough for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wow, nice work, David Eppstein, that's quite different (and a lot shorter) - an obvious keep, clearly Verifiable, a Notable artist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per GNG. Nom, who I recognize has 13 edits to his name so is new, should become conversant with wp:before before nominating further articles. The same goes for his other AfD -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben D. Jones.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:BIO — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In light of the recent significant improvements to the article, I retract my nomination for deletion. And Epeefleche, I note that my nomination of this article has resulted in a huge increase in its quality. Not all new folks are useless. Finsternis (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis W. Chiu

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Essentially, he's a lawyer who was appointed to a local planning commision (not elected). There's nothing cited in secondary sources that establishes notability. Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Chiu is notable and should not be deleted. Editors have removed so much information in the current version Chiu's Wikipedia article from the one just available 45 days ago that he does not appear to be notable in current form. If you Google "Dennis Chiu" and "obscenity" a myriad of third party professional and reputable third party journals will arise, due to his 1995 authorship of an article that called for "national community standards" for judging material as whether materials are legally obscene when transmitted over the Internet. LexisNexis, the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records related information proclaimed Chiu's article on obscenity a "litigation essential". (See https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=36+Santa+Clara+L.+Rev.+185&key=95a34af95c71002b3313b176fc5777e9) However, based on Users Bbb23 and OrangeMike's overzealous editing that information was removed.

If you Google "Dennis Chiu" and "media bias" you will find that his article with John Zaller has had a profound effect in proving how elite opinion (talking heads/government officials) affects how news media slants coverage. In Andre Billeaudeaux, David Domke, John S. Hutcheson and Philip A. Garland's 2003 article, "News Norms, Indexing and a Unified Government Reporting during the early stages of a Global War on Terror" (featured in The Global Media Journal), the scholars write: "In Zaller and Chiu’s (1996) examination of U.S. news coverage of foreign policy crisis, they refined indexing theory by providing 'narrower' and more 'situational rules' for news trend coverage during foreign policy crisis, or emergency situations. These situations defined and predicted how journalists would slant foreign policy coverage as either 'hawkish' in favor of aggressive foreign policy action or 'dovish' representing a more cautious approach for foreign policy. These measurements were found to happen at key points in foreign policy conflicts, leading Zaller and Chiu to hypothesize that the press indexes its coverage to the views of different actors at different points in a crisis: to the president at the first emergence of a crisis, to the Congress as events begin to settle down and to the opinion of non-politicians (such as experts or the public at large), in cases in which the crisis persists over a long period of time." (See http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/fa03/gmj-fa03-bdhg1.htm). Yet, conveniently Bbb23 and OrangeMike deleted the footnotes supporting for the significance of the Chiu-Zaller piece from Chiu's Wikipedia bio.

Furthermore, if you Google, "Dennis Chiu" and "Asian fundraising scandal" you will find a 1999 Asian Week newspaper article that states: "Despite the 1996 fundraising scandal, Asian Americans remain very much a part of the California Democratic Party, said Dennis Chiu, president of the Silicon Valley Asian Democratic Club, with 200 members. 'Two years ago, we met with Roy Romer from the Democratic National Committee to talk about the Asian American fundraising scandal,' he recalled, saying that the party, too, wanted to 'not repeat the events that led to that situation two years ago.' To that end, the party worked to re-create the APA caucus and issued a statement supporting it, Chiu said. And after Gov. Gray Davis won re-election in 1998, his office invited Chiu’s 200-member club to suggest possible appointees. Such overtures have helped bring about what Chiu called a 'renaissance period of Asian American involvement in politics in Silicon Valley.' " Yet, Bbb23 and OrangeMike proclaim that Chiu is not notable when he had a reported affect on the Democratic National Committee, California Democratic Party and worked with California Governor Gray Davis to appoint Asian Americans to state positions. Yet for Bbb23 and Orange Mike, Chiu is still not notable. (See http://asianweek.com/040199/Demsmeetinsac.html)

Additionally Chiu is not only an attorney that was appointed to the Santa Clara County planning commission. He was Treasurer and Legal Counsel for the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. In this capacity Chiu drafted a resolution for the California Democratic Party to criticize the Democratic National Committee regarding the attempt to not take political contributions from Asian donors with Asian last names. Emy Thurber "commended Dennis Chiu for doing a great job on his resolution and announced that Dennis’ resolution was the one voted on by the committee and this resolution's precise language was adopted by the California State Democratic Party. (Emphasis added) (See http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030403.htm); see also http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/010301minutes.htm; see also http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030206.htm; http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030306.htm) Yet, Bbb23 and OrangeMike still claim Chiu is not notable and should be deleted.

OrangeMike and Bbb23 may have good intentions, by they delete references from reputable third party journals and third party journal articles and sources that make the case for Chiu's notability.

The facts, quotes and citations discussed above argue that Chiu is notable and it can be documented by verifiable souces as quoted and listed above -- that is unless OrangeMike and Bbb23 continue to delete the verifiable sources that make Chiu notable.

If Wikipedia users allows OrangeMike and Bbb23 to delete Chiu's biography, then they will verify a methodology for bullying articles off the website - first delete the sources that make a subject notable, then wait until there is nothing hardly notable left and recommend the article for deletion. This is hardly unbiased editing. --Paulsanjose | Talk 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Ever seem WP:TLDR? As to your refs: 1 is LexisNexis' advertising blurb for a document Chiu wrote and they published - fails WP:PRIMARY, and does not discuss Chiu himself. 2 is a passing mention of Chiu's name whilst citing one of his works - not coverage of Chiu himself. 3 is a quote from Chiu in an opinion piece, not coverage of Chiu himself. 4 and the rest of the Santa Clara minutes are minor mentions, and again, do not cover Chiu himself. Bbb23 was absolutely correct to remove these, they have no bearing on the subject's notability. Delete per failure of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Yunshui (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteHow can you vote on deletion when you indicate WP:TLDR which implies the comments supporting non-deletion were too lengthy to read? I strongly disagree with the dismissal of the LexisNexis citation 1, how do you know that the LexisNexis blurb about Chiu's article as a "litigation essential" is advertisement; it doesn't say its advertisement. It says that Chiu's article is a litigation essential. As the largest legal reference in the world, I took it as a declaration and not advertisement. I also disagree with your comment about 2, the article discusses Zaller and Chiu's proof and theory and its contribution to the understanding of media bias. Further I disagree with your critique of 3; The reporter's article was on Democrats meeting in Sacramento and the influence of Asian Americans. Chiu was cited as a legitimate and credible reference to cite in the piece on the influence of Asian Americans in the Democratic Party meeting in Sacramento. Finally, 4 was not a minor mention -- Chiu was singled out for specific mention for his work. "Commending" Chiu for his work at the California Democratic Party convention is a specific calling out of Chiu, and by definition, the special statement is not a minor mention in the minutes. Chiu's article should not be deleted per WP:Notability because he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; nor WP:GNG because he made a recognizable and enduring contribution to U.S. constitutional law on obscenity, and the study of media bias, nor WP:POLITICIAN because his position as a County Planning Commissioner for 11 years who has decided on what is built in the Silicon Valley qualifies him under criteria two - member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city or area; (I hope you are not claiming you that the Silicon Valley is not a major metropolitan area).--Paulsanjose | Talk 08:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. It's not a "major metropolitan area". The criterion reads: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Even if you change city to county, Chiu is not a "member of the main countywide government". That would be the board of supervisors. Chiu was appointed to the planning commission by the board. Not at all the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment. The Santa Clara County Planning Commission is the final deciding body in several areas for the Board of Supervisors, and under county charter is part of the Board of Supervisors, but is a delegated body to oversee certain issues. That is why County Planning Commissioners must report all gifts, like any other elected official in California, to the Fair Political Practices Commission, because there is the opportunity to unduly influence planning commissioners financially. In the State of California, whether a planning commissioner is appointed or elected, the State views them equal in reporting requirements to the Board of Supervisors because of their enormous influence on major metropolitan areas. I'm sorry. Your point is inaccurate; it is the same thing. --Paulsanjose | Talk 08:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

LexisNexis are selling the article you have linked to. How can you possibly claim that isn't advertising? You also fails to address the main point of my rebuttal with regards to the other sources; namely, none of your sources are about Chiu. Yunshui (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are making an inappropriate logical argument. Books are for sale, but that doesn't mean what the publisher says about the book is not credible or true. Your argument implies that advertisements are always untrue. Chiu's article is for sale, but it does not necessarily follow that LexisNexis' statement that it is a litigation essential is not true. I rebutted every reason set forth for deletion under WP:Notability, WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN which is the subject of this page. By rebutting the WP policies cited for deletion, I rebutted the reason for deletion. If you want to cite any other WP policies for deletions I would be happy to address them. (However, it is 2:15 AM Pacific Time and I must address any tomorrow.)--Paulsanjose | Talk 09:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, in fact, what the publisher says about a book it is selling is notoriously not credible! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument does not imply that advertisments are always false, but when you've worked with LexisNexis and other legal publishers for as long as I have, you quickly come to realise that everything they sell is a "litigation essential" (a phrase which doesn't appear on the linked page, btw) or similarly puffed up. It's just ad-speak, it's meaningless. In any case, notability is NOTINHERITED; he could have written the defining legal text of his era and still fail to be notable in his own right.

Per the rest, frankly this is becoming tiresome. Point me to a source that discusses Chiu; not that cites him, quotes him, or mentions him in passing in the minutes of a meeting he didn't even attend. Then I'll be up for discussing this deletion further. Yunshui (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a law review article (actually a comment, which is less than an article). Lots of lawyers, law professors, and law school students write law review articles. In this instance, Chiu wrote it when he was a student at Santa Clara for the Santa Clara law review. The article is carried on Lexis, just like Lexis carries other legal documents. Lexis is an online subscription database that charges for access. The term "litigation essentials" has no significance. It's just a commercial term that Lexis uses that sounds catchy. There's nothing inherently notable about being the author of a law review article. It has greater significance if it's cited in any legal opinions, which, as far as I know, Chiu's was not (it was cited by other law review articles).--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that start a scholarly debate, 12 years in advance of a change to U.S. constitutional law on whether obscenity should be judged by local community standards as opposed to national community standards is a legal writing of significant impact. Courts often do not cite law review articles, because they seek to find it in appellate court precedent. In U.S. v. Kilbride, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a national community standard should be applied to obscenity over the Internet from a very tenuous citation to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The law review articles that cite the end to the scholarly debate with Kilbride specifically reference Chiu's contribution as part of the scholarly debate. However, conveniently you edited out the law review article that notes how the scholarly debate affected the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Also please do not create a situation where I report you for vandalism. Per WP:Vandalism I have given you two warnings - one for reverting my most recent edit to Dennis W. Chiu and for altering My Talk page. If we are going to have a discussion, then let's have a discussion here. Your right to delete and modify articles is a privilege, please do not abuse it. I have reviewed WP policy and am ready to have a discussion.--Paulsanjose | Talk 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I doubt you or this article will survive on Wikipedia, so for the moment, I'm not going to pursue your absurd accusations of vandalism in a forum where you could be sanctioned, but vandalism is not a term to be bandied about. You added information to my Talk page, which I removed as is my right. You then reverted my removal. I left you a warning on your Talk page about your reversion. It is that warning that you are referring to as "vandalism". You have the right to remove the warning, but you do not have the right to label it vandalism. Your changes to the Chiu article itself are as inappropriate as most of your changes have been, which is why I removed them. Again, to label my removal "vandalism" is incorrect. I'm not going to edit-war with you over the changes to the Chiu article because it's unlikely to matter. Editors here will make up their own minds about Chiu's notability, with or without your "contributions". But stop using the word "vandalism" when it doesn't apply. Such a practice is severely frowned upon at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use the word lightly, but the discussion can't always be you're right and I'm wrong. That's not a discussion. I will not undue my additions to your talk page again, if you do not alter mine. However, I was having difficulty communicating with you. I am willing to allow the community to read all of this and decide, but I was feeling bullied by you and I needed to push back in as professional a way possible. Because I was feeling bullied and after looking back over the editing history for Chiu, there was a strong possibility you had systematically used a methodology to set the Chiu article up for deletion, I began to honestly doubt your edits were in good faith, hence I looked up the WP policy and used the word. I understand the practice is frowned upon, and I do not use it lightly and never will. --Paulsanjose | Talk 10:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is getting very far afield of the AfD, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings as to how Wikipedia works. Unless I am blocked from doing so, I will always post warnings on a user's Talk page if I feel the user warrants the warning. So, I won't promise not to "alter" your Talk page. Posting a warning is NOT the same thing as your adding comments to my Talk page, my removing them, and then your reverting my removal. That is impermissible, which is why I left you the warning. As for the bullying, it's really that I disagree with just about all of your edits and I'm forceful in doing so. However, I can imagine from your perspective that that feels like bullying.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that your forcefulness could be perceived as bullying. For the record, I object to your attempt to delete an argument off of my Talk Page at line 107, which I undid. But I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what is notable which will be decided by the community. --Paulsanjose | Talk 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I deleted nothing from your Talk page - I added something. Here's the diff (line 107).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - planning officer of minor independent note - Conflict of interest creation or it wouldn't exist. Far too many primary and legal cites that do nothing to assert notability. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Against Deletion A County Planning Commissioner overseeing the Silicon Valley is not a "planning officer". The Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body that makes legal findings and has the final say on many issues that affect how a community looks and develops for decades to come. According to the County of Santa Clara, where Chiu sits, "The Santa Clara County Planning Commission is a seven-member body of community representatives appointed by the Board of Supervisors. It is the primary decision-making authority for certain development applications, and it advises the Board of Supervisors on various land-use policy matters." (http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning/agencychp?path=%2Fv7%2FPlanning%2C%20Office%20of%20(DEP)%2FAbout%20Us%2FPlanning%20Commission). From 30 days ago, before it was deleted, Chiu's article explained why his work on the planning commission had been important: "On the Santa Clara County Planning Commission,[19] Chiu has participated in most of the major land use decisions in the Silicon Valley, California, since the turn of the 21st Century. Chiu has participated in deciding the balance between development with preservation of the Santa Clara County foothills, reviewing the Viewshed Protection Plan that preserves the view of the hillsides from major highways and other significant points from the valley floor,^[1] updates to the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinances,^[2][20] and Stanford University's Community Plan & General Use Permit (GUP) for academic growth and development.[21]" To add onto the importance of his role on the county planning commission, the following reference was made regarding Chiu's role in approval of Stanford University's GUP: "Stanford University's Community Plan & General Use Permit (GUP) for academic growth and development.^[3]" --Paulsanjose | Talk 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulsanjose, you seriously need to look at WP:V. 1 doesn't mention Chiu on the linked page, although he is referred to in their other pages - which is to be expected, he works there. I'm listed on my employer's website too, so do I merit a Wikipedia article? 2 doesn't mention Chiu. At all. Not to quote him, not as a passing mention - his name just isn't there. Same goes for 3, a footnote in which "The Santa Clara County Planning Office gratefully acknowledges the many individuals and representatives of groups who have participated in the Stanford Community Plan process since its beginning." Presumably Chiu is included in there, since he's one of those individuals and representatives - but it tells us precisely nothing about the man; hell, it wouldn't even do as a reference to verify his existence. If this is the best you have as evidence of notability, you need to drop the STICK. Yunshui (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the assertion by the article's main defender that he/she "learned historiography and biography from the protege of Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter at Columbia" [22] -- whatever that was supposed to tell us. There's just not the secondary coverage needed. EEng (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Paulsanjose makes two arguments for keeping the article. (BTW Paul, I admire your passion, but please refrain from attacking other editors or accusing them of bad faith.) The first argument is WP:GNG. That would require that the subject has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. But the sources you have offered do not add up to significant coverage, and a search of the Google News Archive finds only passing mentions, such as quotes from him in a story about something else. The other justification you offer is WP:POLITICIAN, but being a member of a planning commission (even a powerful planning commission in an important area) does not provide automatic notability. One other possible justification for keeping the article could be WP:SCHOLAR. Google Scholar finds that a paper/book chapter he co-wrote has been cited by others more than 100 times, and that his obscenity article in the Santa Clara Law review has been cited 29 times, and that seems to be it; this does not amount to a significant enough contribution to the field to establish him as an important scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage about the subject; this person has almost zero. Nor does he garner notability from his minor civic role. JFHJr (㊟) 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while I would not consider him notable as an attorney or as a politician, I am sure that an argument could be made in his favor. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't understand. Your comment begs the question what argument?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben D. Jones

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

This article violates the "Notability" guideline and the "No indication of importance" guideline. It is simply a list of this person's military postings and some minor biographical details. All sources mentioned are not independent; they are from routine publications related to the service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsternis (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 October 2011‎ — Finsternis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Two-star generals are inherently notable; service as The Adjutant General of the U.S. Army is very much an "indication of importance". . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per GNG. Nom, who I recognize has 13 edits to his name so is new, should become conversant with our notability standards and with wp:before before nominating further articles. The same goes for his other AfD -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Heiman (2nd nomination).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep satisfies WP:SOLDIER — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a European Union Olympic team

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

WP:CRYSTAL This article refers to a concept that does not exist, is not scheduled to exist nor expected to exist in the near future. — D. Wo. 02:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a re-creation of the same concept previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Warhammer Fantasy (setting). v/r - T P 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Claws

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

I'm hereby nominating this article for deletion because IMHO the subject is all but irrelevant for the average reader. The article describes a fictional sea of a fictional continent of a fictional world. I believe that this is a rather simple case of WP:GAMEGUIDE. I urge you to look closely at the article's history: a simple (7 day [23]) deletion request was done already. However it was not carried out because a well-meaning user was of the opinion that the contents should be merged into another article instead. To be honest, I'm not very surprised that no merge was carried out at all. Such minor articles have a way of slipping through the cracks of the system. Flamarande (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Only reference is to a work of fiction. My independent searches have not established any suitable references (although plenty of blogs and forums). In my opinion the topic is so trivial that it should not even be merged - this would not be appropriate content even on one of the main Warhammer articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto an appropriate Warhammer page. Not notable enough for its own page, though it would make sense to keep the content as a section on a larger page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting). Not notable enough for its own article; could perhaps be mentioned as part of the larger game universe. Yunshui (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article itself claims the area 'Sea of Claws' as a minor area in the Warhammer fictional world. Instead, this article should be merged either with the main Warhammer page, or another appropiate Warhammer page, so the information for those who seek it is still present, but in a place where there is a greater concentration of this information, rather than have it spread out as minor, short articles. (Kathmaur 19:21, 13 October (UTC)
- Reply - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. How does this information about the Sea of Claws contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of Warhammer or any other topic? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Totally agree with DustFromWords. This article is extremely specialized, too specialized to be truly useful. Its contents are simply useless for the articles Warhammer Fantasy (setting) and Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Please, just read these two article and then ask yourselves: "Are the contents of 'Sea of Claws' suitable for any of these two articles?" IMHO the clear answer is: "No, they are simply unsuitable." Flamarande (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional sea does not meet the the general notability guideline and the article can only be a a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. As nothing is referenced, I do not believe that a merge is warranted and I do not think it is a plausible search term for a redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting) - IIRC, deleting a redirect actually takes up slightly more server space than keeping it (!), so as there is a reasonable redirect location, it should be redirected to that. (Also, perhaps transwiki to the appropriate Wikia first?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with transwiki link to Wikia. Only a very small percent Wikia wikis actually have accurate, well sourced information on them. Wikia's Warhammer wiki is definitely not one of those. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte Pakistan PTA

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

Article was Proposed for deletion, original author objected in edit summary, No third party sources in the article. Current sources are all primary sources from the company. I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability GB fan 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2011 (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} 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated above.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per the above - though there may be non-english sources we're missing. If such sources exist, now would be the time to bring them forward. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Govindrao Talwalkar

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

Better to use the common English spelling for searches: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion Ghits just showed mirrors of Wikipedia - I could find nothing to support notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: This AFD was malformed. It was created on 6 Sep 2011 without standard AFD discussion bits and pieces, and was never listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 6. I've corrected these issues, and the listing period should take into account that 6 October 2011 is the effective date of first listing. Whpq (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Lots of WP:NPOV issues compounded by the fact that most of the links don't and those that do mainly don't seem to mention the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2011 (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} 00:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a challenge, this article. To help review it, I've labelled all the live links and put the dead links below ground, I mean below a line. Results: Talwalkar has written 11 books. He really was a notable journalist, stirring up controversy in his own right, as well as writing and editing a lot in India. The article is I think largely true and surely passes WP:GNG. The article fails WP:NPOV and WP:V is poorly met - but in my view is certainly capable of it. Please don't ask me to draft it from scratch! So I'm a KEEP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I have done a quick slash-and-burn edit on the article, inserting headings, etc. It needs citations but may be a bit easier for you guys to read. I think we have a bit of a cultural issue here - it is normal in India to write in a very polite, honorific way about retired elders (rather nice, actually), but it comes across as v. flowery in the West. And insisting on proof and inline citations would just be rude! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had the same problem as Chiswick Chap with the article itself, and also noticed that the subject is a notable author and newspaper editor, based on extensive Google book[24] and Google scholar[25] results, under the more common English spelling, "Govind Talwalkar". There is no doubt he is notable and passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He appears to be a notable journalist/editor/author. His work/opinions appear to be important enough to be cited by others, for example [26]. This [a distinguished leader of Marathi journalism editorial] in The Hindu calls him "a distinguished leader of Marathi journalism". -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this closes, the article should be moved to "Govind Talwalkar", which is by far the more common English spelling in reliable sources. That would also make it less likely to be nominated for deletion again, based on the reason this was nominated. I think that a move would have to be done by an admin, since it would be done over a redirect. First Light (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability guidelines are retroactive. Articles do not get kept because they qualified under previous guidelines when they were created. I will userfy this article per request. v/r - T P 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS as has not won an itf 50k+ tournament, played in a WTA International tournament or played in the Fed Cup. Contested PROD, with remover arguing that as the article was created before the new tennis notability guidelines (but complied with the old ones) it should not be subject to the new ones. This recent AfD contradicts that claim. Ravendrop 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say the new guidelines should cover the last two seasons in its equivalency with the men. This year (2011) in May she won a $25,000 doubles itf tourney and that's not good enough to be notable. She has never even won a $25,000 singles tourney so that can be thrown out. Prior to 2010 we should probably check what the payouts were as compared to men to check whats compatible with mens challenger series events... however since prior to 2010 she never won anything above a $10,000 entry level grade itf event in either singles or doubles I would say there is no need to check in this case. She is not qualified to be listed as notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2011 (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} 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In May, when she won a 25K tournament in doubles the guideline criteria confirmed her to be notable. The NTENNIS clearly says: This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. I think we should apply these new NTENNIS criteria to newly created articles. (Gabinho^>:) 08:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Really? Should we then include all the men's itf tournies for the same time period to keep everything fair? That is what we are trying to do on wikipedia correct? Because otherwise the ladies from 2009–2011 are much more notable than the men. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really. The men's ITF tournaments are ranked bellow Women's. Per example the highst ranked ITF men's tournament (15,000$ + H) rewards the winner with 33 points. The 25K (25,000$) level ITF Women's tourament rewards the winner with 50 points. There can be no comparison between them. If a female competitor, let's say, wins 6 of these 25K tournaments over one year she gathers 300 points which is enough to place her in Top200. That's notable. In my opinion 25K female tournaments are notable and they should't be removed from the critera in the first place. (Gabinho^>:) 09:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ok. I did more research on this subject. First I had miscounted the tournaments so that may sway things a bit. Sorry. You would think that to be notable in tennis you should have done something a little out of the ordinary. It's a job for many like working for the fire department. The WTA tour has 59 tournaments and the ATP tour has 68 tournaments. Pretty close. Every tournament and every player that has ever played in those tournaments (even qualifiers) is notable by our standards. That's every player in every draw, every year. Every equivalent value tournament and player from 60+ years ago is also notable. I think that's a minimum of 32 players per event up to 128+. That's a lot of players but they should be notable.

The Men's Challenger tour has about 150 tournaments ranging from $35,000 to $150,000 total prize money. Tretorn sponsors the 13 events that pay over $100,000. These are pros in this tour but imho at least the bottom half is not very noteworthy. 150 tournaments and any male player winning one, even a $35,000 total payout event, is notable on wikipedia. That's weird. Those $100,000+ events sound more reasonably notable to me. Maybe if you win 6-8 of the $35,000 events, but winning one is nothing very special in the history of the sport. If you got rid of all the events that payout less than $50,000 you'd still have 100 tournaments.

The Ladies don't have a challenger tour, just a massive itf tour. And that's where the balancing comes in. They have $10,000 and $25,000 events but the next total payout on the itf tour is $50,000. The ladies don't have anything in between $25,000 and $50,000 like the men do. it would be easy if they had lots of $35,000 purses but they don't. If you include all the $25,000+ events there are about 220 of them. Way more than the guys, and I already feel that half of the guys events aren't notable for winners. If we dump the $25,000 events for the ladies we are left with about 80 tournaments of the $50,000 plus variety. Unfortunately that's much less than the men's 150 which we at wikipedia have found as noteworthy for winners. For perspective if they were both cut off at $50,000 there would be 100 events for the guys and 80 for the gals.

I had miscounted the guys events when changing some guidelines and I thought it was much closer to the ladies totals. So with the $25,000 events included its 220 ladies tournies to 150 mens tournies. Without the $25,000 events it's 80 ladies tournies to 150 mens tournies. Either way you do it one side or the other gets shorted in tryingto make things fair. So Gabino mentions comparing points given out. He said the $25,000 ITF ladies event winners get 50 points and that 6 wins brings them within the top 200 players. Ok lets look at the bottom of the mens Challengers, that's the $35,000 tournament payout. This is the lowest notability for men. Winning one of these gives 75 points (80 points if it supplies food and shelter). Winning 3 of these (according to the wikipedia article) will put a male in the top 200 players in the world. The lowest win on the men's challenger tour, which is the lowest notability we have for men, is far more important than a $25,000 ITF ladies victory. That is why I set the standards at a $50,000 victory for the ladies to be notable. Yes in my opinion that is still too low a threshold for notability in tennis. Anyone who has seen my edits on talk pages knows this. But my reasoning for raising the ladies threshold to a $50,000 ITF win was to make it relatively equal to the men for the sake of casual wiki readers and their limited tennis knowledge. I thought I did that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strong case here. Your explication is reasonable. Ok, then I request to userify this article until this tennis player becomes notable. When this happens I will request a move to namespace. (Gabinho^>:) 22:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

lol...what's funny is after reading your post about the ladies point values you got me thinking that maybe I was too hasty in changing things... your post made me re-add up all those points and count all those tournaments. It took about an hour but that's where I found my error from months ago where I was off by 25 tournaments. When you say userify what does that mean? Do you keep it in your own userspace or does wikipedia put it someplace safe? I guess I've never done that but it sure sounds like a good idea so that no one would have to re-write it from scratch if and when the time comes. There are a few articles I asked to be deleted that I felt within a year they likely would become notable. I'll have to ask about how to do it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't think we should put qualifiers on it all wins on the ITF, ATP, WTA Tours should be enough for notability.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be so much against wiki notability policy it wouldn't even be funny. Those low level events have winners checks of a few hundred dollars and 15 year old kids. We are trying to be reasonable here. Notability means you are probably outstanding in your field. I think it goes way to far as it is, but I'm willing to work within the system of consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SDI Media Group. v/r - T P 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDI Media Norway AS

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

I was unable to find any reliable sources in a Google search for "SDI Media Norway" and the only reliable source on the page right now is a brief Bloomberg summary of what the old company used to be called. The company therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reedirect to SDI Media Group as this is essentially branch office of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2011 (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} 00:37, 6 October 2011 (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} 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable information to SDI Media Group, then redirect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nous Model Management

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

Insufficient reputable sources given. Notability is questionable. Tolkien fan (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News finds that the name has been dropped a lot in a variety of independent stories, mostly about Paris Hilton and her acquaintances. But notability is not inherited. I found no significant coverage of this business itself in the first several pages of results I waded through, and sites like "Hot Mamma Celebrity Gossip" don't sound like reliable sources to me anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNews search shows that Nous Model Management has many notable clients, Paris Hilton and many others. Having notable clients indicates that the management company is notable - in the same way as a record label who has notable bands indicates notability for the label. Rednevog (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very notable fashion company with tens of well known models. Here are current listings for female models [27] and male models [28]. Many of their models have also appeared on covers of very reputable fashion and lifestyle magazines. werldwayd (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2011 (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} 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are the 99%

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

Does this really need its own article? Seems like if at all can be mention in the main "Occupy Wall Street" Article. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There isn't enough info in this for me to verify the actual origins of the phrase we all know it came into the main stream with the OWS protests and tumblr but I thought I had heard it first, before the recent events with the group Anonymous. The actual origins need to be identified and sourced. If the phrase is to have its own article it should then be not only of origin but rather what groups use the phrase and what the political philosophies are, then the article is relevant because it captures the essence of the phrase and people/groups that use it.--IMGator (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should only be mentioned in the movement's article, if it's even notable there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major internet phenomenon related to but district from the OWS protests; covered by many reliable sources. JORGENEV 00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename "99% movement". This movement is spreading across the United States to places far from Wall Street. Coverage in reliable sources is plentiful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Occupy Wall Street article for the movement. This is just for the slogan and meme. JORGENEV 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that's just the New York City portion of the movement. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jorgenev. The term, though undeniably related to the Occupy Wall Street movement, has become notable in its right, having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of third party coverage from reliable sources. Seems to be similar, yet separate, from OWS. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have put the article into question a bunch of times since it was created and knew it would eventully be sent to AfD or at the very least a WP:PROD, however as was pointed out here the reliable sources that cover this slogan and can not be ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change the Name of the Article? ok, But does anybody think we should at least change up the name of the article. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to change the name of the article rather than delete it, a discussion on the article's talk page through a move request can always be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As the slogan We Are the 99% originated from the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, it should be merged with the page Occupy Wall Street as part of the campaign process that actually occured. The slogan is not a major topic on its own, and so should be merged. Kathmaur —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - I don't see how are readers are better served by having a stand-alone two paragraph article instead of it being integrated in the main Occupy Wall Street article, where it would exist in context. When and if it grows to six paragraphs, then let's consider spinning it off from the main. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One example: article about a "well"-known phrase versus article about what the phrase was referring to. "The world wonders" article has just one paragraph about the battle, because its not about Halsey's decision about deployment of his ships, its about the historical significance of that phrase. Just the same as We are the 99% shouldn't be about income inequality in the United States, or even the motivations of the protestors. All that goes in the OWS main article. When you get get sourcing like the Let them eat cake article, which we don't have now, let's talk about breaking it out from the main article then. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is beyond retarded, we do not use an encyclopedia for the promotion of political catchphrases. If there is legitimate, in-depth coverage of the phrase as a a standalone entity, e.g. Read my lips, I am not a crook, then that is another thing. None of the sources address it as a phrase, they cite it and then cover the more general aspects of the Wall Street protest...this is the epitome of WP:RECENTISM-driven editing run amok. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully requested that Tarc reconsider the use of the phrase "beyond retarded" in this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge no reason for a separate article here. aprock (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be more than an adequate amount of reliable sources, making the movement notable in itself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice towards a future split, per LoveUxoxo basically. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been covered by national publications. A merge seems unworkable at present because of the size of the Occupy Wall Street article. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources, and enough content to justify a stand alone article.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Honestly, every single keep call here is empty until/unless one of them can provide us multiple reliable sources covering "We are the 99%" itself, the phrase/motto/slogan. The sources provided by the article are about the Occupy Wall Street movement in particular, or the rich-vs-poor gap in general. Just name-dropping the term as part of a story on something else entirely does not establish notability of the phrase. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of those e.g. [29] and [30]. Bear in mind this slogan has been so heavily covered it has spawned the "We are the 53%" riposte, which is probably now notable in its own right too [31]Rangoon11 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely what I mean. #1 is a writer defending his critiques of the slogan users, while #2 is commentary on why what the 99% label is inaccurate. Both simply say "hey, they're saying it" before going into stories about the protest and what they're protesting. Fail and fail. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, both articles are inherently about the slogan and the concept behind it. There is only so much that can be writen about the actual five words, but the concept of the slogan is the subject of those articles and a huge number more. As I said previously, the slogan has been so influential that it has spawned the "We are the 53%" riposte. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to [32], that article is just a literal discussion of the 99% figure. It is the analysis by a certain Yana Kunichoff, who writes for the New Mexico Independent. Useless to us, except for editors who are desperate to puff out the We are the 99% article with non-notable quotes. As per Tarc, the rest are pretty much the same. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of the 99% figure is inherently about the slogan, the slogan is only reason the 99% number is being discussed. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not even remotely in the bounds of an accurate or truthful statement. If you are going to have an article about the slogan, then you need to find sources that are about the slogan, not articles about what the slogan is advocating. There is a crucial difference there. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Slogan identified with the movement. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than sufficient amounts of reliable third-party sources. —stay (sic)! 01:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tarc's statement that "If you are going to have an article about the slogan, then you need to find sources that are about the slogan" is a valid request. Here is just such a source: Kopun, Francine, "We are the 99%", Toronto Star, October 5, 2011. The reporter quotes a professor of media studies, an advertising executive and a magazine editor talking about the slogan as a slogan. Of course, the broader movement is discussed as well, but the primary focus of this article in a well-respected newspaper is the slogan itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That scrapes slightly closer to addressing the slogan as a slogan, but it quickly trails off into the usual Occupy Wall Street coverage. Redirect it to the main Occupy Wall Street article; there's enough blurbs out there to justify a sub-section there, but not for a standalone article. It seems that people simply want the standalone so that it serves as a platform for the movement's advocacy. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's what we want, and I have never had a doubt that such applicable sources would appear in the future. But one, or three, such articles right now are prettay, prettay thin to create a stand-alone article at this point without it looking like a 3rd-grader's art project - all glue. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to look for sources yourself? Here are some.

E.D. Kain. "Outside of Wonkland, 'We are the 99%' Is a Pretty Good Slogan". Forbes, 10/12/2011.

Discuses the use, reaction to, and relative merits of the slogan.

Nona Willis Aronowitz. "'We Are The 99 Percent' Is the Best Populist Message We've Had in Years". Good, 10/3/2011.

Praise of the slogan.

E.D. Kain. "We Are the 80%, Not the 99%". Forbes, 10/11/2011.

Discusses the accuracy of the slogan.

Jeffrey Feldman. "Power in the Message: 'We Are the 99%'". The Huffington Post, 10/12/11.

Talks about how great/accurate the slogan is.

Kopun, Francine. "We are the 99%". Toronto Star, 10/5/2011.

Focuses on the slogan as per Cullen328.

Elizabeth Flock. "'We are the 99 percent' and the '53 percent' and the '9 percent' and the...". Washington Post, 10/11/2011.

Covers the many different spin offs the slogan has inspired and the relative merits of each.

"Conservatives launch "We are the 53%" blog". CBS News,.

Covers disagreements about the accuracy of the slogan.

Adam Weinstein. "'We Are the 99 Percent' Creators Revealed". Mother Jones, 10/7/2011.

Covers how the meme got started on the internet.

Phoebe Connelly. "Understanding ‘We Are the 99 Percent’". Yahoo! News, 10/11/2011.

Entirely about the slogan.

Rich Lowry. "Heed the 99 Percent". National Review, 10/14/2011.

Talks about a few of the "we are the 99% stories.

John Carney. "Conservatives Respond to 'We Are 99%'". CNBC, 10/12/2011.

Covers criticism of the slogan.

Shaila Dewan. "99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off". New York Times, 10/11/2011.

More about the merits of the slogan.

Danny Westneat. "'99 percent' protesters' math doesn't add up". Seattle Times, 10/11/2011.

Criticizes the slogan.

Josh Barro. "We Are the 99 Percent—Even Rich People". National Review, 10/12/2011.

More about the merits of the slogan.

Rebecca J. Rosen. "The 99 Percent Tumblr: Self-Service History". The Atlantic, 10/10/2011.

About the spread of the slogan on the internet.

Kevin Lincoln. "WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT: Stories Of American Disillusionment". Business Insider, 10/4/2011.

Some examples of the meme.

Ezra Klein. "Who are the 99 percent?". Washington Post, 10/04/2011.
Sarah Kliff. "Who are the 99 percent? Part 2". Washington Post, 10/04/2011.

Discussion of the demographics of those posting "we are the 99%" pictures on the internet.

"Buried Treasure: 99% vs 1%". San Francisco Chronicle, 10/6/2011.

About how the author discovered the tumblr.

I don't understand why some people are fighting so hard to have this topic deleted and merged. Is it because if the content was merged away into Occupy Wall Street the criticism of the slogan could justifiably be removed or seriously whittled down as extraneous? Given a review Special:Contributions such a hypothesis would seem to have some support. JORGENEV 04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article that you are intending to write with the above sources is good Wikinews article, and a bad encyclopedic article. No one ever doubted you can find thousands of (literally) news articles defining "this is what 'we are the 99%' means", because its the internet is full of people like Nona Willis Aronowitz et al who have an opinion. Historical context and meta-analysis in secondary sources ("The phrase 'we are the 99%' was generally accepted to refer to") takes time. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Merge I would encourage a merge, but not to the Occupy Wall Street page. While important to that page as the site of origin for the phrase, the slogan has a larger significance for the whole "occupy" protest movement, and so should be merged into that umbrella page instead. --Cast (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quite clear from the sources given above that this slogan is extensively discussed and meets the notability guidelines. Silver seren^C 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale of the previous "keep" !votes and demonstation of references (including 3 comments above) has impressed me of the notability of the subject in its own right, distinct from Occupy Wall Street. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a PR platform, so there is no reason for a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.54.249 (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Occupy Wall Street article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per numerous third party, reliable sources, many of which are listed above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Referenced and Informative, however a rename such as We are the 99% (slogan) or something to specify it. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I agree with the notion of renaming to We are the 99% (slogan); it's more specific.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the formatting at Category:Slogans for these types of articles, perhaps the title of the article should remain as-is. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appear to be enough reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Slogan has appeared frequently in the media and there are indications that it will continue to do so. yonnie (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect : to Occupy Wall Street. Mt king ^(edits) 20:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to "Occupy" protests (first choice) or Occupy Wall Street (second choice), with Keep a close third. There are sufficient sources for the slogan itself, but I don't think it has really become separate from the protest movement at this point. The best idea is probably to merge and redirect, and then revisit the issue in a few months. If people are out in the streets in the middle of winter chanting "We are the 99 percent" then it will be worth reconsidering for a separate article. Neutron (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on my own comment: It seems that this is going to be a "keep" and I don't really have a problem with that, but the article really needs some rewriting -- I just put a "clarify" tag in the intro but that's only one of the problems. It think it also needs to be expanded, based on the sources. For example, the protests are still going on, but is this still the main slogan? Or have they moved on to something else? Neutron (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable on its own, not every use of it involving the protesters occupying wall street. Ample coverage exist, obviously. Dream Focus 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the WP:GNG thanks to the above hundred thousand sources →Σ τ c. 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:Jorgenev's sources ... I resonate with the idea of Northamerica1000/Phoenix B 1of3 and others to move to We are the 99% (slogan) ... because this article is about the slogan itself and not necessarily have it be a "coatrack" to hang lots of analysis of OWS or its claims. It's no "We Shall Overcome, but it's something protestors rally around and certainly deserves two or more paragraphs. If you have to merge, I am fine with that, but the content is solid. MPS (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename for now. A merge may be justified in future, but I don't think it is now. The Occupy Wall Street page goes into great detail about the nitty-gritty details of unfolding events, while this page is for some of the general ideas motivating the protests... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~We need an article for the larger movement, not just for the camp in New York City near Wall Street, which should be geographically obvious.~~ -- Kendrick7^talk 12:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I see we do have such an article. Nevertheless, I think the notability of the slogan isn't in doubt. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to We are the 99% (slogan) or similar. As per editor MPS above, the failure to differentiate this article from others would likely result in the article becoming "coatrack" for a more general article about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons given above. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect as been suggested and well explained above - Nabla (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion embodies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Your byzantine reliance on a straw poll by random users - or some other method which no one other than a select few wiki admins knows or cares about - to determine "notability" is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. Personally, I say keep, but really, who am I to make a comment? - eykanal talk 15:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and close. Notability seems clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to point out just what part of WP:SNOW is applicable here, or what your rather retract this naive piece of hyperbole? Tarc (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SNOW, overwhelming consensus, well-cited, is to keep. Highly minimal support for delete. Not just an "uphill battle" as consensus is lable to keep shaping out this way; therefore, appears to be a foregone conclusion from the start. Sngourd (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have no overwhelming consensus, you have a flurry (see what I did there?) of keeps that basically say "it is well-known" or "keep it is reliably sourced", yet few have even attempted to address the fact that the coverage is of the movement/protest and not the slogan itself. So what you have in reality is a pile of weakly-argued keeps that are about as sturdy as your snowball (see? another funny snow reference, hurr hurr) in July. There are a significant number of deleted and merge/redirects that do not justify an early close. So please, knock it off and just let it run its course. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pursuant to WP:SNOW Not sure how many more KEEPs this needs before it's actually kept. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Jorgenev's sources demonstrate without a question that this headword is noteworthy and an encyclopedic analysis based on reliable sources can be written. Current article state (such as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) is not grounds for deletion, but improvement. --hydrox (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SNOW is falling. This is a notable catch phrase which has caught on globally, and as a result has received significant non-trivial coverage worldwide. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 09:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. There are better ways to cover this, and less trendy ones too. But there are sources, and clearly a consensus to keep - which doesn't mean it's the correct choice, just that it's the one that we'll end up doing. I don't think WP:SNOW applies, since there are good-faith opposes - but I doubt very much they will be able to sway consensus to delete. So you might as well close this. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Occupy" protests. The slogan in an of itself embodies what the protests are about, and can be covered more in detail there. This should only be its own article if the slogan itself gains notability outside of or after these protests. Oren0 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - well-known phrase; it's flurrying if not snowing. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps a merge with "Occupy" protests would be better once activity has died down a bit. -- GSK (t ● c) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Deletion of the corresponding article was discussed since October 4 on German wikipedia. Article was decided to be kept. --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* Obviously sufficiently sourced for article on its own. deMURGH ^talk 09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slogan meets guidelines of WP:GNG in that there is significant coverage, widespread usage of slogan establishes presumption that subject is suitable for inclusion. Slogans can stand on their own as historical artifacts outside events that created them. See Where's the beef?, D'oh!, Sí se puede, Read my lips: no new taxes. Sngourd (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and important. The use of "99%" to refer to the slogan has a wider scope than the "Occupy" movement itself. For example, "Bank of America Blows Off the 99%. A reader trying to understand the reference is going to be looking for an article about "the 99%," not about "Occupy." And the issue of whether 99% is the correct number has enough detail already, and enough potential for expansion. to warrant a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons listed by others above. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge - To "Occupy" protests. This is not a well-known phrase, but still, it is still significant. Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merits perhaps a line in the main "occupy" article, but not more. A stand-alone article really is too much. Given all the current brouhaha, this will probably be kept, so someone should revisit this in another couple of weeks when no-one will care anymore... --Crusio (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is seriously considering waiting a couple of weeks and then re-AFD'ing (as suggested directly above) then I'd like to refer them to WP:DEADHORSE before they commence WP:POINTY editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's pointy about my comment? the fact of the matter is when events are ongoing, there are tons of editors around that find this hugely important. Experience shows that in 99% of cases, once the excitement dies away, people look at things differently. Unless something changes, I bet that this will happen with this article. In 3 or 4 weeks, nobody will edit it any more or even look at it. And if I'm wrong, should it be taken to AfD again, ti will just be kept again. --Crusio (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your comment is pointy. Just that if anyone were to re-AFD so quickly that it could definitely be construed as pointy (assuming that the result is a clear "keep" or "delete"). A lot of people have !voted in this AFD, far more than normal, so a clear result can be seen as a definite statement of the community's feelings. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, have you just said that "we are the 99%" is in the 99%? Nice! (oh! and I bet it is so) - Nabla (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this was indeed "pun intended"... :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never give away your puns, Crusio! Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per JORGENEV Aleichem (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and stands on its own merit. USchick (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I think this is a pretty clear case of a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy---Burn the city to the ground burn the ashes. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - per Wikiskeptic. This is a slogan inside of a movement with questionable long-term notability. Move it to the article for that movement. - Haymaker (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge First off, there's no real excuse for deleting this as opposed to merging it into the other article. The slogan has played a large part in rallying people around OWS and received quite a lot of per se coverage. It's notable. That said, does it belong as its own article? Possibly. I'm conflicted; on one hand, its long term notability and presence in society is subject to question (and so if the phrase entirely disappeared from the public discourse several months or years down the line, perhaps it's relative notability to other slogans would decline. On the other hand, maybe it should have its own page as there are several other slogans relating to various political movements which set a precedent for doing so. It must be considered, however, that these other movements may be of different scope or scale. so for example to compare and contrast,

Liberté, égalité, fraternité was the slogan of a movement, but it also influenced a movement that caused a whole revolution. Likewise
No taxation without representation also inspired a revolution, but was only ever, like this slogan, just a popular phrase used to communicate an idea, never more than that (yet precedent says that with enough use it gets its own page.
Live Free or Die has its own page, and it's never caused any revolution (it's just a state motto, and only a moderately popular one at that. If being a state motto makes it notable enough, maybe that's a blow for the notability requirement as many state mottos are quite obscure, nonetheless the war cry of a transnational political protest.)
Vive le Québec libre is an example of a slogan that has neither resulted in a successful revolution, nor given the official seal of state support, and falls under the domain of a broader political movement yet nonetheless has its own page.
Information wants to be free has its own page, but it can hardly be said to be anything but a favorite turn of phrase of a diaspora of separate individuals, groups, and movements which are even less intertwined and unified than OWS.
Flower_power is, I would say, a very similar kind of article to what we're seeing here. The slogan of a modern American political movement that did not inspire a full-on revolution, but did greatly alter the political climate, and a slogan whose use (though widespread at the time) saw some use after its namesake movement ended, but thirty years later is relatively obscure when it comes to using that phrase for what it used to mean. Nonetheless, we have an article for it.
We answer to a higher authority is a mere company slogan. Like the "99%" slogan, it's strictly contemporary. When the company disappears, its unclear whether the phrase will still see use.

Although wikipedia is not common law, and precedent does not always rule, it is important for us as editors to understand the context of what we are doing when we make decisions. Is this page not notable enough, and deserve to be merged? It's possible. But are there dozens of pages which have been allowed to stand on wikipedia of similar or lesser notability? Most definitely. There would be a precedent for keeping a page like this, and it would be in line with what many editors have decided was the best course of action before in wikipedia. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and if you want to use that as an argument, then why not include Wir sind das Volk, another famous, historical, influential slogan that went around the world and changed it. --Crusio (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 01:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masamichi Nozaki

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

Non-notable boxer, fails all criteria at WP:NSPORT. Vogue90 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vogue90 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. Had a brief look at this one. Results in the ring look promising, but not sure if they're there yet. Coverage looks promising, but not sure if it's over the hump yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:ATHLETE#Boxing LibStar (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2011 (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} 00:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per G11. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole de Carle

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

Delete: Almost pure promotional/advertising page. Quis separabit? 00:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional puffy fluffy. NICHOLE DE CARLE (A DESIGNER, A BRAND, A PRODUCT) Nichole de Carle, a British first class honours graduate in contour fashion from De Montfort University in Leicester, is an acclaimed fashion designer; primarily of luxury lingerie. Following her graduation in 2005, Nichole de Carle went on to work with Alexander McQueen, Donna Karan, and Pleasure State. In 2008, she established her own brand, which has achieved high-end success... Nichole de Carle has a strong culture heritage being a Huguenot descendant. Her designs have a sound influence from literature, art and architecture. The lingerie is innovative, inspirational and stylish.... I can use a designer barf bag at this point. Wikipedia is not an adjunct to designer undie vending. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is all promotional and while I did find a few things on the internet, I haven't found anything that would justify this article existing on wikipedia. So far it's all non-notable puff pieces via blogs and the miscellaneous news entry There are a great many people who could boast just as much as she does and do not warrant an article here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. Clearly a vanity page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very promotional. Fails WP:GNG. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious promotional content. References found are not adequate to justify its existence. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged with {{db-multiple}} accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:O9Qz2ygLmK4J:www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/SCC%2520Public%2520Portal/keyboard%2520agenda/BOS%2520Agenda/2006/August%252029,%25202006/TMPKeyboard201629500.pdf+Santa+Clara+County+Viewshed+Ordinance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
^ Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance at http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning/planningchp?path=%2Fv7%2FPlanning%2C%20Office%20of%20(DEP)%2FProperty%20Info%20%26%20Development%2FZoning%20Ordinance
^ See acknowledgments page 37 thanking Chiu for work on the Santa Clara County Planning Commission to approve Stanford University's GUP (http://lbre.stanford.edu/sites/all/lbre-shared/files/docs_public/SCC_SU_GUP.pdf)

[1] ttp://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:O9Qz2ygLmK4J:www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/SCC%2520Public%2520Portal/keyboard%2520agenda/BOS%2520Agenda/2006/August%252029,%25202006/TMPKeyboard201629500.pdf+Santa+Clara+County+Viewshed+Ordinance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[2] Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance at http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning/planningchp?path=%2Fv7%2FPlanning%2C%20Office%20of%20(DEP)%2FProperty%20Info%20%26%20Development%2FZoning%20Ordinance

[3] See acknowledgments page 37 thanking Chiu for work on the Santa Clara County Planning Commission to approve Stanford University's GUP (http://lbre.stanford.edu/sites/all/lbre-shared/files/docs_public/SCC_SU_GUP.pdf)

[1]

[2]

[3]