Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 April	2 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Cannon Productions

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

Lack of secondary sources to indicate notability under WP:CORP, edit log indicates creation by company — Preceding unsigned nomination made by Burn37 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Burn37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for current failure to meet WP:CORP. New company formed in 2011 has yet to gain enough coverage to show notability. If or when this changes, a return of the article might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any (let alone significant) independent third-party coverage. ^Bongo_matic 10:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in any sources to establish notability. The one film that they have produced appears to be direct to DVD and received no notice contrary to the assertions in the article -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brudnicki

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

Small town Mayor. The only coverage that seems to exist is brief "news in passing" stories in the local newspaper about the Mayoral race. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a bit more coverage than the nominator mentions, but the person still falls short of the kind of coverage in reliable sources called for by WP:POLITICIAN and the General Notability Guideline. -- Donald Albury 11:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails POLITICIAN and the other coverage is passing mentions only. ^Bongo_matic 10:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of getting near meeting the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt D. Dykstra

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

Small town Mayor without coverage in third party sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as attack page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan J Garvey

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

Notability in question. Completely unsourced. thesimsmania 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dopson

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

Prod removed by creator. Mayor of very small town (population 6k) who fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator, fails WP:POLITICIAN and the General Notability Guideline. -- Donald Albury 11:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V as it has no secondary sources. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Non of the routes listed have any notability. This is not a likely search term for a redirect and the target page would itself be non-notable. Charles (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Did you not notice someone removed the refs?! Adam mugliston Talk 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every time we have an AfD on a list of bus routes page it ALWAYS goes to non-consensus, so what is the point? It's good enough to stay. Adam mugliston Talk 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Ely (2nd nomination)? "Always" is a very strong word. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly referring to pages I created. Ely was done badly by Wilbysuffolk and I'm not surprised. Adam mugliston Talk 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom - This is purely a directory with no notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stuart.Jamieson, while a helpful directory perhaps, its not notable enough for inclusion here. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them All. Seriously, what the hell? There are a dozen pages on these bus routes. Who's going to Wikipedia for a bus schedule? Unless Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated on one of these routes, these pages need to be deleted. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all delete recommendations above. Wikipedia is not well suited to serve as a directory of bus routes; if someone is looking for a bus route, they would be much better off looking at the bus operating company/transit authority's official web site, which presumably is kept up to date and is extremely unlikely to have been vandalized -- something which cannot necessarily be said about a Wikipedia page such as this one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A page I created has never been vandalised. Except for when Charlesdrakew deleted sources from a different page I created. Adam mugliston Talk 17:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing references isn't always vandalism. A user like Charles usually only does things within policy. Rcsprinter (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many list of bus routes pages have been nominated in this region as they are just not notable and will be deleted. One reference is not good enough and wikipedia is not a travel guide. Who would go on to wikipedia to see this rubbish. The recently deleted pages inculde: List of bus routes in Harleston, List of bus routes in Ely and List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market which have all had a large amount of delete responses and nearly no keeps. 81.145.108.189 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This content is all ready covered by List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire anyway. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 18:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta agree on this one. Delete or Merge. Rcsprinter (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really obvious I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains run by Indian Railways

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

Indiscriminate list of information leading to dozens of external internet sites and few wikipedia sites Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is not indiscriminate as its scope seems quite clear. Wikipedia contains numerous articles about individual train services in India — see Named passenger trains of India, for example. The list just seems to need work to replace external links with wikilinks. That is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like the worst sort of WP:NOTDIR. An article with no content, other than an unintelligible list of external links to trains of no demonstrable notability. There's scope here for an article akin to Named passenger trains of India, but this current article bears no relation to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list not an article and so it's no surprise that it has this structure. For examples of comparable lists for other geographies, see List of Canadian railways or List of common carrier freight railroads in the United States. Warden (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "comparable"? In defined scope (agreed) or in content (completely different)?

This category for named passenger trains of India is remarkably large. Sadly most of the articles within are falling rather short, but that's fixable (one would hope). However this current list article isn't even linking to the wiki articles we already have (and seeing the size of the cat, the crossover is presumed to be large), it just links to ELs. There is no content within the list, it doesn't link to further wiki content via its links. One column is entirely meaningless, as it's merely an Indian Railways magic code number. The whole article appears to be more of a vast spam linkfarm for ixigo than it does an encyclopedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT#DIR. The linkfarm argument also appears to have merit.—Kww(talk) 11:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update To address the linkfarm issue, I have reworked the list to be a list of wikilinks. Merger with with similar List of named passenger trains of India is now indicated. By bringing these together, we will get a comprehensive index of notable Indian railroad services. Warden (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete (or at least, convert to a category). This is the sort of content that belongs as a category, not a list article. There's nothing here except the list of article names - that's better handled as a category. Using articles rather than ELs is certainly an improvement, but there's still nothing in addition to those articles. A category would achieve just as much and would be better maintained in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline WP:CLN explains that lists and categories are complementary and so "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Warden (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some things work better as categories. This content-free list is just one of those. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case a list is best because there are missing articles and links and a list will support redlinks such as the Flying Rani Express better.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article's formatting has been significantly changed compared to the time that it was nominated for removal from Wikipedia (diff page of last edit prior to nomination for deletion). As it is now, the article is a focused, discriminate list full of blue links to other Wikipedia articles. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Lastly, the article appears to not have any of the points listed at WP:NOTDIR at this time within its style. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as a proper disambiguation page when sub articles are created. It does a great disservice to our readers to list over 14,000 entries in one single list-article -- which is what this list will turn out to be if completed (and that's including only regular passenger trains and not including the commuter trains or vacation specials). If we don't list the entire 14K+ on this page, then the article ought to be renamed to something like "selective list of trains run by the IR" or some such. —SpacemanSpiff 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of named passenger trains of India Abhishikt (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reason to have this large list as an article when a category could serve much the same purpose. Ducknish (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made a category and placed all of the trains currently contained within the list in it. Ducknish (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. The article appears to be a large list of nothing but Wikilinks. This is a perfect candidate for a category. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above Ducknish (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thumbs up :-) --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: though the list is a faction of the actual number of trains, I think moving on it will need to be broken up into list of shatabdis, list of rajdhanis etc or even by railway zones. I suggest a template formatting with further info and an expanded rather than just a list of names though. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is indiscriminate. It list Wikipedia articles for things that have something significant in common. A perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 19:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: serves a purpose that would be better handled by a (now-created) category. The list is currently provides no information not included in a category page and is almost entirely unsourced, with the verifiability issue being better handled via the individual articles and their inclusion in the category, rather than at second hand via this list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NOTDUP. Also, articles can be expanded with text, while categories cannot. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt rebuttal: as I stated above, "the list is currently provides no information not included in a category page", so WP:NOTDUP notwithstanding, the two are blatantly duplicative and not in the least bit "complementary". That lists and categories can be complementary, does not mean that they always are. Nor does it mean that we should always allow both, where one or other clearly obviates the need for the other. Nor has anybody demonstrated any likelihood that the list will go beyond mere duplication of the category. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the slightest indication that this article will ever be "expanded with text" ? I can think of nothing to add to this list article that doesn't belong better on the individual train articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to expand the list into a table. For example, you might have columns for the terminii, e.g. the Chitrakoot Express runs from Jabalpur to Lucknow. And you might have a picture of the locomotive. And you might give the years of service. And so on. Warden (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list and a category are both desirable--there are almost no cases where it would be otherwise. Since the individual trains are notable, than the list of them is justified. Whether this should be merged with the other list can be discussed subsequently. Given the very large number of Indian Wikipedians, many of whom in the Education program were last year having difficulty finding suitable topics to work on, this is very easily expandable. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to incubator, with the standard reminder that it can't just sit there if better sourcing doesn't materialize. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken (film)

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

Movie clearly lacks notability. JoelWhy (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a short while per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. This film will be debuting on April 30... in just 7 days... at the Newport Beach Film Festival,[1] followed by other festivals,[2] and has the particpation of notables Corey Sevier, Jordan Ladd, and Kim Poirier. While its lacking release fails WP:NFF, and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NF, THAT is a situation that should be rectified in a very short time. Rather than offer 2-1/2 hours after it was created[3] to delete a new article on a soon-to-premiere film, we can, per instructions at WP:Deletion policy, place it out of mainspace and in a location where it will benefit from collaborative editing as its quite imminent release draws nigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON and suggest the creator get a WP:REFUND for WP:AfC at a later date. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's premiering tonight, April 30. The incubator was set up specifically for cases such as this, where there is "an intention that the article can and will be improved". Sadly, outright deletion, however temporary, takes the topic out of these pages and eliminates any opportunity for collaborative editing to address issues. If it is not sent to the incubator as deletion policy encourages, I request a relist so we might A) await expected coverage of the film, and B) not have to go through possible WP:REFUND in a few days. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~ Looks like a run-of-the-mill/generic made for TV movie with nothing particualrly notable about it. Though I do appreciate Schmidt's comments on incubation, since it aired so recently. As it is, there is only one source in the article, which is Facebook, so at the very least, a higher-quality WP:RS needs to be found if it is to remain long-term. — GabeMc (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
incubate as above. Chnage !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Madras_Christian_College#Halls. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Heber Hall

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

The article is about the college Hostel for students and is purely based on its website and blogs. The notability of the topic is in question due to its lack of coverage, which is in contrast to the fact that its location Chennai is a metropolitan city. I propose Deletion of the article and merging any useful content with the parent article Madras Christian College ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as St. Thomas's Hall -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Thomas's Hall which is the article of another hostel of the college. With this edit I have added all the useful content into the main college article at Madras Christian College So that the deletion of this article does not remove info that could have been merged. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the college article. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Around, specifically at Madras_Christian_College#Halls. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this Article is about a college Hall, not a Hostel. And it does meet notability criteria, since it is one of the very few halls of residence in India (See:Category:Halls_of_residence_in_India). So do St. Thomas's Hall. I recommend to retain this article. Also, even if you call it a mere "Hostel of residence", it has a history of 75 years in present campus of Madras Christian College, and specifically for Bishop Heber Hall it has a history of more than 250 years and is closely linked with history of Bishop Heber College, Trichy (See:Bishop_Heber_College) and personalities like R. Velu, Alhaji Kirunda Kivejinja [4] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Information & National Guidance, Uganda] and many other notable personalities. So I strongly recommend to retain this article and restore St. Thomass Hall's article.--JPF (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a Hall of residence but certainly not among the very few in India. The lack of articles does not mean they dont exist, it means they are not notable. The decision for deletion will not be taken on strong recommendation or claims but verifiable sources, besides the link [5] you gave does not even mention Bishop Heber Hall. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unfortunate for us that Ugandan Deputy Prime Minister wanted to make sure that his visit to Bishop Heber Hall last year (2011) was kept as a secret, and due to security reasons, the news was not published in any newspapers. There may be many halls, as you say (and being an Indian, I haven't heard about "many" of them) but I hope its link with not only its parent institution Madras Christian College (which has a history of 175 years), but also Bishop Heber College which has a history of almost 250 years [6] makes it unique from any other. Also, The House of Blue Mangoes by David Davidar has a whole chapter dedicated for Heber. Unfortunately, it is impossible to show the pages of book online.

In short, I say this article does meet notability criteria, and adequate proofs have been given about its close links with evolution of major educational institutions in South India, and also for age of the institution (started in 1937 and with a history of more than 250 years). If Hogwarts deserves an article in Wikipedia, for its mention in Harry Potter, at least for Heber's mention in well known title The House of Blue Mangoes this article deserves a place in Wikipedia.--JPF (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how you added up 250 years. the second link you gave[7], only shows that Bishop Heber Hall was opened in 1934, which we are not questioning. this particular year and the associated line has been included in the section Madras Christian College#Bishop Heber Hall your example about Hogwarts is ridiculous and needs no reply.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these links help:

Maybe, there is a little too much information in the way the Hall is presented now, but I believe a separate article for 'the Halls of Residence in MCC' (something in the lines of List_of_Harvard_dormitories) would not be much hoopla.AnandK | Talk | Contribs 07:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding with the links Anand link 1 a wp:RS tells us about the history of hall in a single line. Link2 merely names it. and link3 is more of an advertisement for the college fest. While a mere naming and proof of existence would have been sufficient if this had been the college article, but no, it is a seperate article on a hall of residence, these references can only support the content that is already in the main article Madras Christian College#Bishop Heber Hall. I am glad that you agree that the article Bishop Heber Hall contains lot of extra information and a pruning is required but then after pruning it will again be reduced to the content in the college article, which is why me and other editors above are supporting merge

your suggestion of WP:CONTENTFORK is also not suitable due to lack of references/sources. So at present the best thing to do will be to let the halls remain in the main article and improve its quality.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its just another page on Wiki, I dont understand the need to "delete" information that has been 'created' online..... Improving the Quaility of an article can happen only if its the Article is alive and others see it to pitch in with corrections, additions and reference.. Heberians on MCC FaceBook groups have been informed and I'm sure we will convert this into a great page soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.69.47 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Overtoom

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

Delete Person is not note-worthy, article is not sourced, possibly autobiographical. Filmoliver (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sources indicate that he only directed a small number of episodes. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does seem somewhat noteable for directing the SpongeBob SquarePants series, maybe the article needs improving? I mean look at these sources http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1294130/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1294130/news thesimsmania 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB isn't a reliable source. And the rest of the article reads like a personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.76.194 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Lawless

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

High school band director, fails WP:BIO, not notable Downwoody (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an obvious delete for lack of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP: CREATIVE. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:ChromaNebula. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is just a normal guy that works for a high school. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: He is not just a normal guy that works for a high school. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created in 2005, about the same time as Youth Performing Arts School (when he was still the orchestra director there), hence the references to him as "Mr. Lawless" in early versions the article and the emphasis on him teaching high school. Actually, that was his second career. His real claim to notability is as the founder and director of Ars Musica , a fairly prominent baroque music ensemble in the 1970s and 1980s and one of the pioneers in the early music movement.[8] [9] It toured nationally and was reviewed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, etc. [10] The ensemble made two recordings, Bach's Brandenburg Concertos 4 and 5, ([11]) and Excerpts from Handel's Messiah ([12]) which were reviewed in several specialist publications, e.g. [13] [14], [15], [16]. Food for thought? Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Director of ars musica is notable. The high school material, though relevant content, is of course not enough to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this; by the numbers, more editors favor deletion, but subsequent information would seem to point the other way. Could I ask the Delete editors above to review the sources provided by Voceditenore and advise?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per his work with Ars Musica, which has enough hits in Google news to convince me of its significance. The referencing of this article is in serious need of improvement but that's not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my original comment. Also agree with David Eppstein, article needs considerable work re referencing and encyclopedic tone, but not a reason to delete. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for work in Ars Musica which was rather well known at one time. Rewriting the lede to emphasize this now. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Longevity claims. Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bienvenido P. Cancero

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

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:BLP1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being the oldest person in the world but probably not) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. He seems to have had a brief burst of attention in May 2008 for his age and nothing since, meaning he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individual claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Canadian Paul 19:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect If he was actually verified to be one of the oldest living people in the world, then maybe he would have some notability (though very borderline). However, with or without the claims, he simply hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources, even if his claims are true. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, a redirect would probably be the best option, since he has received some coverage, but not enough to satisfy any notability guidelines. Nevertheless, he still isn't notable enough for a separate entry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longevity claims where he is mentioned. Cancero technically meets the GNG as at least two (likely more) Philippine newspapers covered his claim, but there is not much to say about him so inclusion in the list of claimants is sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as his name would be a viable search term then a redirect would be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longevity claims as per ThaddeusB PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longevity claims per ThaddeusB and Delete other content is most appropriate since the only claim of notability is longevity. DocTree (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Whiplash (band). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scaglione

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

Musician who has no notability outside of the band he played for, namely Whiplash. None of the other members of that band have their own articles and just because the drummer filled in on drums with Slayer once or twice doesn't make him notable enough for a separate article. Should be deleted or at least redirected to the Whiplash article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND says "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article", and the article claims he is a member of Whiplash (band) and Slayer. If he truly is a member of Slayer guidelines would suggest keeping, but if he filled in once or twice, then "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" would seem to apply. Peacock (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was never a member of Slayer. He filled in on the Reign in Pain tour after their original drummer quit halfway through, and before the tour ended in 1987 the original drummer had come back. He never appeared on any albums or recordings. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whiplash (band), as WP:BAND recommends. As noted above, it appears that while Scaglione filled in for Slayer, he was not a member of the band. If that's not the case I'll reconsider. Gongshow ^Talk 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whiplash (band), as "Tony Scaglione" is a fairly plausible search term. Filling in on a Slayer tour does not count towards his notability. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo T. Piranio

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

Barely referenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was a member. I can find some passing mentions of him online, but no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find him mentioned here (p.146) as the first boss of the crime family, but I cannot find enough coverage to prove he passes WP:BIO. I would normally recommend merging or redirecting in cases like this, but I can't find any reliable sources that mention his middle initial "T", so there's a small chance we could have the wrong person. Instead I have created Carlo Piranio and redirected it to Dallas crime family. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete or Merge/Redirect. The paragraph at Dallas crime family about the subject is longer then this new article. No need for an own article at this time. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Brocato

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

Barely referenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was supposedly a member. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mentions in reliable sources that indicate he either existed or was part of the crime family. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were reliable sources, he wouldn'd pass WP:PERPETRATOR. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brocato does not pass WP:CRIME --Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Roti

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

Unreferenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was supposedly a member. I can't find a single mention of him online: possible WP:HOAX. Scopecreep (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find any sources either. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No (printed) sources given, no sources online. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:CRIME and the article is unsourced --Vic49 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. - filelake shoe 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Posipal

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

Never played for a fully professional league, fails WP:NFOOTY. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (person). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vampire Kisses (series). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Kisses (novel)

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

Delete this as non-notable and redirect to Vampire Kisses (series) as pursuant to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellen_Schreiber_(2nd_nomination) (the author of the series, where it has been established that the author and individual books are not notable, but the series as a whole is borderline-notable). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything appropriate to Vampire Kisses (series), without deletion. There is no policy-based reason to delete the material here, so per WP:ATD, it should be left visible in the redirect history just in case someone wants to come along later and try to expand it to establish notability for this book. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page - there's nothing to merge, as both pages are currently overflowing with WP:DICTIONARY-style plot summaries and character biographies (which occupy 90%+ of the text of each page). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per above. Everything that could be merged has been merged, all that's left is a plot summary that wouldn't entirely fit on the page for the series as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this entire corner of Wikipedia - the interlinked "UF"(?) non-notable authors and their books, and articles listing nothing but hundreds of SP books, etc. is extremely WP:FANCRUFTy, lacking, in general, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, lack of WP:OR, and all of the other things that come along with fan-cruft. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 01:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Bliss Blanton

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

BLPPROD declined because a primary source was in the article (an IMDB link), though even the PROD decliner admitted that no reliable sources were in the article. Article has an IMDB link and nothing else (no reliable sources), and is a BLP. p b p 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that topic has already been deleted once for failing notability guidelines for entertainers. This article, an BLP lacking reliable sources, fails to remedy that p b p 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. p b p 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who declined the BLPPROD, I once again point the nominator at WP:BLPPROD#Nominating, which ties my hands with respect to declining BLPPRODs with respect to articles which have even the most unreliable sources within them. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we're here because of an unfortunate loophole in the BLPPROD rules...article isn't sourced enough to statisfy BLP, but is "sourced" enough to be declined as BLPPROD. In any case, it's AfD-eligble, so here we are. The PROD is old news now p b p 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loophole or not, I fixed that. Now that it has some sourcing, the whole basis for the nomination is over, so I guess we can close the AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from ~~Neutral~~) I didn't find sourcing that meets WP:GNG, and that never thrills me when writing about living people, but she does have a significant role in one notable film [17], which leaves me at the question of whether Scar (film) is notable. If it is, her role in it is signficant, and she meets, by a hair, WP:ENT #1. If not, I don't think she does. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through more refs I see enough to be convinced Scar is notable, which gets Ms. Blanton to WP:ENT #1. I also see Milowent has found at least one significant source I missed and added it. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has had significant roles in two notable films so passes WP:NACTOR. Dream Focus 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still unsourced, and therefore violates BLP... p b p 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that could possible offend anyone or cause libel lawsuit problems in any way. Instead of wasting time with an AFD, you could search for her name, in Google news archive, and the name of any of her films, and then copy and paste the address of the results to the article, proving she was in those things she it listed as being part of. AFD is not cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP If there is a very easy problem to fix, then just fix it, don't waste time dragging others over to do it for you. Dream Focus 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sourcing is non-negotiable in a BLP.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its fully sourced now, that's really not a problem.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to consider an article that can't source a single standard infobox field besides her name to be "fully sourced", that's your prerogative. There's no substance here.—Kww(talk) 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edited) I am working to improve the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete multiple roles but don't see evidence of being notable. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, has had multiple roles, meets GNG. I agree she's not super notable, but she has enough, and article is pretty popular (already avging about 300 views a day since its creation 10 days ago). Was article as originally written clear as to notability? No. That's what us editors are here for, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found and added this source to the article:

Perry, C.J. "Interview: Kirby Bliss Blanton - Actress Discusses 'Project X'". Film Slate Magazine. Retrieved May 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: minor notability, but seems to pass both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: verifiably/independently notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many notable roles. passes WP:GNG. An actress at the beginning of her career.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G11: Unambiguous promotion)

Swamiharihar

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

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. West Eddy (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored for purpose of transwikification if somebody wants to do that. Sandstein 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of misquotations

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

I'm proposing deletion and transwikifying to Wikiquote. There's even an article there waiting to receive non-duplicate content. I have half a mind to be bold and do this as unilaterally as possible, but I admit this is a decent article and this AfD is likely to draw some opposition. The issue is not that this a particularly bad article, just that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See under WP:NOTDIR, which states that Wikipedia is not for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Also refer to WP:LONGQUOTE ("Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations").

Furthermore, there has been previous interest expressed in this move, such as in the first AfD for List of misconceptions and in the article's own talk page. Inclusion of List of misconceptions seems, to me, the most obvious counterargument, but the simple fact is that that article is not in a format explicitly named in policy as inappropriate for Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's going to be transwiki'ed, I don't see any reason to delete it per se, when we could just make it into a soft redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other than being less mature and not as well formatted, I see little difference between the spirit of this article and List of common misconceptions. This is not merely a list of quotes, all of the content is well cited and put in context. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asher196 is right; the article has been tagged as needing more citations for over four years! Also, Wikiquote uses context as well; you can't garnish a list of quotations with context and make it encyclopedic. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well cited? Are we reading the same article? The vast majority of this article relies on primary sources if any at all. This article has had this problem for years. Get rid of it.--Asher196 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with misquotation This topic is clearly notable, just check out Google and Googlebooks for yourself for a few minutes and you'll be convinced of that. I'd say cut down the list to only those citable/cited from sources. Then I would redirect this article to Misquotation (which I have just redirected here because it had a weird Wiktionary template), and add all the misquotation info (of which there is masses) there.--Coin945 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a notability issue. Famous quotations in general, and specific types, such as misquotations or famous last words are certainly notable. But you'll see "famous last words" redirects to a disambiguation page of various works of that title, with a link to the actual collection on Wikiquote, which is indeed the appropriate place for it. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Transwikify per BDD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as an un-encyclopedic list of very loosely associated miscellany. Wikiquote has hundreds of misquotations, contextualized in articles about the persons to whom they are misattributed,[18] or annotated where the correct quotation or attribution appears. It could be transwikified for inclusion in q:List of misquotations if people really want to, but it would be fairly pointless to do so. That article is also a dumping ground for random stuff that is largely ignored by regular Wikiquote contributors, and is cluttered with trivial and poorly researched material that would not long survive in an article that is monitored. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On behalf of Wikiquote, while we'll be glad to work on the list, most of these misquotes are not sourced up to our standards, which require an independent source showing use of the misquote. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nin-wikipedic list: neither glossary, not navigation list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linear time encoding and decoding of error-correcting codes

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

Appears to be a discussion of a single specific paper, rather than a broad discussion of relevant literature on the topic. As such, it is not notable. West Eddy (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree, see WP:ESSAY and WP:NOR Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.

I am no stranger to closing contentious AFDs, so I am happy to volunteer here.

By my count, there were thirty-nine !votes by anon IPs or newly-made accounts with few or no other edits. These are generally discounted in the closing of AFDs because such participants tend to be unaware of the various notability requirements that have been developed by Wikipedians through our experience of trying to build an encyclopedia.

Of the remaining !votes, nine are to keep (some "weak" and some "strong"); thirty-seven are to delete (again, with various degrees of strength and urgency); five are explicitly for moving or merging; and thirty-two are to redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The move/merge voters and the redirect voters generally enunciate the common idea that this title is by itself innocuous, and that the subject of the title, although not independently encyclopedically notable, warrants mention in the campaign article (where it is, indeed, mentioned at this time). Furthermore, the arguments for deletion tend to be directed towards the content of the article, as opposed to any import of the title. It is uncontroverted that the word "Forward" is in fact an "Obama-Biden campaign slogan". Similarly, although the anon and new user keep votes might not reflect policy, the underlying theme generally expressed in those votes is that the information regarding pundits and commentators criticizing the selection of the word, "Forward" should be included in the encyclopedia. The function of conveying information is served just as well by discussion in a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as it is in a separate article (perhaps better, because it can then be read within the context of the entire campaign). A redirect will be picked up in Google searches, and will allow readers seeking information on the slogan to find the place in the encyclopedia where such information can be found. The slippery-slope argument that having such a redirect opens the door to NPOV redirects is belied by the existence of RfD processes specifically geared towards eliminating improper redirects.

Because there is a clear consensus against having a separate article at this title, but no consensus against maintaining the redirect, I make the following determination. The overall result of this discussion is that the current content of the article should be deleted, and the title redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. As to the content (which has shifted considerably over the duration of this discussion), that is a matter to be hashed out on the talk page of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)

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

Not notable on its own. Could be included under Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Given that Yes we can doesn't have its own page, it's hard to see how this would qualify for a stand alone article. West Eddy (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**KEEP** - Cowards, why delete something that is true? Very PROGRESSIVE Comrads... — Preceding unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.83.242 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**KEEP** - IF you are going to have a page about the slogan itself then this page should stay. However, both pages should really go. Why have a page on "Forward" at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcamos (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Tcamos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

**KEEP** - Other political and presidential slogans DO have pages of their own. Witness: It's the economy, stupid, Stay the course, Read my lips: No new taxes, Morning in America and even Tippecanoe And Tyler Too, not to mention a host of other political slogans. The important part is: does the slogan rise to a measure of being of interest in and of itself, because of its impact or its controversial nature? In this case, it does - there is sufficient press coverage and controversy. If nothing else, just witness this discussion as a measure of the controversial nature of the slogan. Keep it. — Puff4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP It's been covered so much in the newsmedia now that it's risen to the level of notability. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is very reasonable. User:Funkju 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete-"Freedom of speech demands that this not be deleted. Lefties, of course, will want it deleted, because it shows Obama for what he is... a Socialist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.116.133 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.116 (talk) [reply]
Do not Delete-"This article is important and is only being discussed because it paints Obama as a Scoialist. Important to today's political converstaion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.116.133 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE -- Just because some people don't like the message doesn't mean that it should be removed from everyone's access. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.44.10 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! It shows the relation of like minds with like agendas..which is why it was put under the politic heading in the first place— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.32.194 (talk • contribs)
Keep! Wikipedia articles so long as they are not infringing on copy right or violating any laws should not be deleted. Edited for accuracy perhaps but not deleted because they are an Inconvenient truth.
Delete—"Other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't work any more than WP:OSE does, but the end result is the same. Delete, since there's nothing worth merging right now. The proper place for this is, indeed, in the campaign article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This doesn't even rise to WP:DICDEF level. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. & others. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Redirecting to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 might be considered, should a few more secondary sources surface, but definitely does not merit a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything that needs to be written about the slogan can be incorporated into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, rather than existing as its own article. Peacock (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A redirect doesn't really work, as this is an unlikely search term. But we should still see if there is a redirect that does make sense here. I also don't think this makes it to Speedy Deletion; what criteria does it meet? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is exactly the place for compilation of facts on relevant topics, including politics. Value of an electronic encyclopedia is that it can quickly tie together such facts, rather than wait until next year's edition. Thus, move forward. In the weeks ahead there will be many students investigating this topic who would never have seen the historical connection between this 21st century slogan and its parallel use by earlier statist regimes on other continents.Jhacklem (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Jhacklem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Too soon to delete. This topic is undoubtedly going to be developing a history over the next week or two. Either the Obama campaign wants to be associated with a Socialist shibboleth or they have committed a political blunder. Either way there is going to be some reporting to be done on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.75.196 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then I'd argue that it's too soon to add. We shouldn't WP:CRYSTAL on Wikipedia. Also, if it did become an encyclopedic topic it should be included in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, I'd think this could possibly by mentioned in the disambiguation page without a Wikilink. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Reading through comments from other posters here, I think that a redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 is the best course of action. While I never seen this in any way becoming an encyclopedia article, I do see value in redirecting to the 2012 campaign page since it has been chosen as the official slogan. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 01:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not the subject of multiple, independent published pieces of coverage in so-called reliable sources. Campaign 2012 fooliganism, fodder for POV war. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At most, this looks like it could be worth one sentence in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The article currently consists of only one sentence (with a reference) anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & edit, edit, edit, edit. It now can include so many Wisconsin items, per Rachel Anne Maddow, wonderful. Save the page. Also: « Toyota: Moving forward with America », @ 200 miles per hour, over a cliff, with the accelerator & brake pedal stuck,..... hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 02:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and accurate; Delete Obama-Biden Campaign Slogan, it is redundant. ABOin2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABOin2012 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — ABOin2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete Political silly season has no business on Wikipedia. Can be mentioned on 2012 U.S. presidential election, but any linking to socialist/communist causes would be original thought. Let's let the readers make that jump and judge the accuracy of that link for themselves. --McDoob AU 93 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all you libs sure love to hide the truth and if wikipedea is going to fold to your bull they will lose a lot of users get a spine wik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.245.253.90 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Otherwise this is a chapter in 1984, verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.191.50 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE; KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and accurate as well as adding the usage by Obama-Biden, the American people have the right to know the facts as they play out and become history. The Socialist movement in the United States must be recorded for historical purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~INCLUDE DO NOT DELETE;~~ Do not succumb to the Political pressures or it will just take away from the credibility of Wikipedia completely. The main stream news has already become tainted and not trusted by the vast majority of the U.S. citizens as well as citizens from other countries when polled. PLEASE DO NOT FOLLOW IN THIER FOOTSTEPS...DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all thats what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE,is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why? What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing. That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats's out of the bag. REDISTRIBUTION or wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of weath is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legslation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic is separate from the general workings of the Obama 2012 campaign. The article references an attempt to link a historical meme with a current political push. That linkage, or lack thereof, is separate from the Obama campaign's statements about the President, his record, etc., all of which are suitable for inclusion in the campaign article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.235.154 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SENSOR SHOULD BE A CHOICE SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all that’s what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE, is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why? What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing. That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats’ out of the bag. REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of wealth is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legislation. (New here so please accept my appoligies for the report, wanted to add signature) John.ryff (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteWe at wikipedia cannot allow any hint of socialism linked to Barack Obama, a great and magnificent president. It is the duty of Wikipedia to maintain left wing bias (per a systemic bias of white, mostly left wing young authors). It would not be in our best interest to keep any article that induces negative thoughts about the Mighty Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The "Forward" slogan for the Obama/Biden 2012 campaign appears to be factual as does the use of the word "Forward" in Communist or Marxist-Socialist publications today and in the past, ergo inclusion within Wikipedia is justified and exclusion/sensorship or removal would appear to be politically motivated and go against the principles of freedom of speech which Wikipedia promotes. If this information were factually incorrect, removal would be justified.

(http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/30/news/la-pn-obama-campaign-video-forward-20120430) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E) (http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2012/04/30/obama-campaign-reveals-new-slogan-forward/) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57424018-503544/obamas-2012-campaign-pitch-forward/) (http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/may/02/proggies-muck-wikipedia/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.233.2 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Deleters: censorship is a slippery slope (say that 5 times fast - but its true. Don't be afraid of the truth)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CerpherJoe (talk • contribs) — CerpherJoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete. Silly argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.215.139 (talk • contribs)

Do not delete. The page is truthful in its assertion, and is a reference. It does not assert any political bias one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.187.151 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — 216.189.187.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Part of the political tomfoolery that should be included in the campaign articles. Closing admin - keep voters have been canvassed - [19], amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Enough with the political nonsense and meatpuppets coming from everywhere on this AfD. Article doesn't show any sources to verify it's notability, and a campaign slogan isn't enough for it's own article. Merging into the 2012 US Presidental Campaign or the Obama article might be the way to go here. The sooner this AfD is closed, the better to stem all of this puppet nonsense. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been linked to by Drudge Report as "WIKIPEDIA mulls deleting entry on Obama-Biden slogan..." Just FYI for potential high traffic, not as part of the discussion. Hello32020 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this AFD and debate open the full 7 days. No one should speedy this. It's way too political and hot now. FYI: Linked off of Drudge: http://i.imgur.com/NQDj3.png Herp Derp (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and a relevant discussion.; If you delete this slogan, then that would set the precedent to delete all campaign slogans of any type, and there are many Wiki entries. That's censorship. Keep Wikipedia about fact and not political opinion.Halin805 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Halin805 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete no relevance, no connection, no citation to make genuine connections, just random connections of arbitrary words to create a link for another political campaign. John Kerry V George W Bush "Flip-flopping" primarily because most of the arguments for keeping state that obama is a socialist as a means at making him look bad means that it violates WP:NPOV and sadly it cannot be salvaged. Jarunasax (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Jarunasax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete - Yes we can doesn't have its own page. Would only be a page for campaign puffery. Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia is supposed to be FREE speech, without political manipulation. Don't let the far-left silence the truth because they simply do not like it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.204.118 (talk • contribs)

Keep Controversy over this slogan has made it notable on its own, unlike most campaign slogans. Vegasprof (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe caterwauling by Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax don't really count towards notability, sorry. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment By attempting to marginalize the most-listened to radio program in the entire nation through referring to it as "fringe", you reveal your bias.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move - A (referenced) discussion on the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan would be appropriate. Use in the Obama campaign and its implications (or lack thereof) could be discussed, but its use in the Obama campaign as the subject of an entire article is too narrow. No speedy delete, and no keep, and no left or right wing rants. PAR (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon to tell if a campaign slogan will be iconic enough to justify a separate article, e.g. The buck stops here. The faux "controversy" is a smattering of non-notable far-right criticism that does not justify a separate article. Perhaps an entry and a mention of the criticism is worth it at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:EVENT JoelWhy (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can't be denied that it's relevant, and factual, and significant.130.111.163.179 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment violates WP:ATTACK as it is an aimed attack at a campaign. It is a campaign slogan, but the connection with marxist writings in a magazine that was a musical and theatre review it laughable Jarunasax (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to your Comment. That Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 chose Forward as their slogan is factual. How is that an attack? Exactly how? Be precise.Sturmde (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment in Response The original posting has been altered removing the linking to the "socialist german newspaper" proving even more that the initial connection was drummed up to cause conflict, check the history of the pages edits like "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications" and the recent vandalism on the page, but you can look at that yourself [vandal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarunasax (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep >>> it's historical input and relevant to the discussion of political change in America.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.120.28 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — 72.48.120.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - There is already a list of campaign slogans here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_slogans. Many of these slogans link to its own wikipedia page, not a redirect. Some are quite new. Why should this not be included, but others can? Who determines it's way too soon? It's an official campaign slogan and also has other meanings behind it, and therefore should be kept.69.208.134.208 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — 69.208.134.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - part of a particularly obvious effort to tie a single word in the English language, the state motto of Scott Walker's own Wisconsin among other things, to eviallll commynism, and thus to smear the Eisenhower Republican Obama as a commie. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At first blush, I leaned toward deleting this, but it has indeed taken on a life of its own making it, for the moment, notable. Should the subject fizzle out, or the campaign not push this aspect any further, the question of deletion can be revisited.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete without prejudice - political wranglings aside, the topic is article-worthy, but the article as it stands is absurdly useless. Stubs are fine when an article is being started, but not when they are high visibility and used for political points. --B (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP BECAUSE OF PROMINENT NOTE BY NOTABLE RIGHT-WING NEWS AGGREGATOR DRUDGE REPORT ("WIKIPEDIA mulls deleting entry on Obama-Biden slogan...") --34C34C (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— 34C34C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP - I'm unsure why there's such a quick move to delete in this case when many private citizens have had such a hard time removing disparraging content they've "discovered" about themselves on wiki. This move to delete, or even suggest deletion, reeks of bias and only confirms suspicions about the validity and/or truthfulness of the articles on wikipaedia. Just because content may be offensive to some is not an excuse to censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am seeing references to this slogan all over the news and whether it is stays the major slogan of a political campaign or not, the history of this slogan and the choice of it is notewothy. Deleting this would hide an important context of the slogan and its history. Its as if a major campaign chose the slogan Arbeit macht frei and we deleted the article showing how it was previously used. I came here specifically to get info on previous use of this slogan after reading about it in the news and was shocked that some are attempting to delete it. SHAME! 216.178.108.235 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Calm Down Section Break (Full Protection)

Comment. Please can we have a cup of coffee and relax. There's no chance of this discussion being closed early - there are too many editors commenting, and too many varied opinions. But please remember, the Articles for Deletion process is driven by consensus, not a count of the votes for Keep vs Delete vs whatever. If you believe this should be kept (or deleted), please make a reasoned statement saying why. Linking that reason to Wikipedia's policies is useful as well. Reasons that don't apply policies are less likely to be persuasive. Copy-pasting previous responses will be even less persuasive. This is intended to be a debate, so debate the article and the subject on the merits please. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I asked for and received a full protect of the article. As the previous poster stated, we can all calm down and discuss this rationally. Safiel (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It should absolutely stay--to do elese would be a political decision. Keep it along with a discussion about the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.197.54 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC) — 12.33.197.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Tea sounds good. There is no relevant modern controversy that exist the only controversy is the original paper having most of it's editors arrested in the 1800's there is no current relevance.Jarunasax (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Based solely on the choice of "Forward" by President Obama dn his campaign, the phrase "Forward" is now becoming a meme. References are appearing across media today, and it is a slogan which has clearly become a touchstone for political, cultural, and media/internet rights debate. If this entry succumbs then we should probably clean out the other 10% of Wikipedia entries which have much less visibility and impact. Floyddabarber (talk)Floyddabarber 18:29 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Floyddabarber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete Isn't it ironic that people are trying to politically censor the democratic party's campaign slogan. How embarrassingly undemocratic of the democrats. Let the people know the facts so they can represent the democracy with their votes. All Americans should be against censorship, stop putting your party above the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.70.222.31 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing worth merging here, either; and we need to keep an eye on the SPA's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you take out the SPAs and unsigned comments, you're pretty much left with a bunch of experienced editors agreeing that this is an utterly absurd debate to be having.JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- political spam, utterly non-notable. Same goes for any slogan, any party, any campaign, any country. Appalled. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to 2012 election campaign page, where it can have a section, including the negative information and links to socialism etc. neither "Hope and change" or "Yes we can" have standalone pages, and both were widely covered. Additionally Yes we can has the same linkage ("si se puede") so is almost a perfect analogue Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article points to other stand-a-lone Wikipedia pages for "forward" in other languages. For example, Russian (Vpered), Italian (Aventi!) and Hebrew (Kadima). Are we to have meaningful articles on "Forward!" in a good handful of languages EXCEPT english? I think that would NOT be wise, and hope you keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWNpuppy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — CWNpuppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE This should be incorporated into a general Obama-Biden 2012 Campaign article. If and when this gets important/significant enough to significantly affect the campaign during the course of the election season, it would be appropriate to create a special article for it. Currently fails WP:GNG. Tmfs10 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Tmfs10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP Anything else would be just show the bias of a site suppsed to be open and honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.85.8.33 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Such a sudden move to remove this reeks of bias and merely serves to confirm the perception about the reliability and accuracy of articles on Wikipaedia. Given that this wiki article on Rick Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)#Reception_and_political_impact) contains a personally motivated attack by Dan Savage, where is the outcry to remove this? Is "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."[8][15] newsworthy, whereas the Obama Administration choosing a campaign slogon traditionally associated with socialism is not? The fact that we're even having this discussion speaks to the skewed, partisan nature of wikipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs)

KEEP People have the right to know the history of such slogans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.236.228.225 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — 164.236.228.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE This doesn't need it's own article. The content (what little there is) should be folded into an appropriate existing article. 74.61.32.25 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is historically relevant and well supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biccat (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT Crystal ball. It can always be added later, IF it actually become notable. The Determinator p t c 18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge the entire sentence into the main campaign article). Rather think the nomination and what BDD, Peacock, CapMan07008, and others said sums it up pretty well. Thing isn't really notable by itself, doesn't have much of anything to say about it, and even if there might wind up something about it later, crystal ball and all that and there's a main article where it would be better said anyway, etc. — Isarra ༆ 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After much consideration, and reading through the legitimate (read: not sock/meatpuppet) comments, I believe this article should be kept, but moved, per User:PAR above. In my opinion, the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan merits an article. However, Pres. Obama's reelection campaign's use of it should only be a portion of that article. Furthermore, deleting this article outright would be an embarrassment to the project, and further reinforce stereotypes about who we are and what we're about, and while that's not the primary consideration here, it's not nothing either. L H M 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article. The use of "Forward" by Obama's campaign will naturally make people look at where it has been used before. The Hitler Youth having a marching song, "Forward, Forward", and he Maoists using the phrase, "Forward" in their campaign to overthrow the Nationalists in 1949 is certainly interesting in a historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigedlb (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And over the gates of Auschwitz it said "Work shall set you free" -- does that mean we shouldn't work anymore? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't see what makes this encyclopedic. There's barely any information on the article anyways. If it becomes something that actually warrants an article in an encyclopedia, then bring it back, but for now delete it.Allemannster (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs in article about the campaign, not standing alone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to this article, and its entire single sentence stating the slogan exists can be comfortably placed in the main 2012 campaign article. I wasn't contributing heavily back in 2008, but I guess nonsense like this crops up every four years. No major coverage in reliable secondary sources to flesh this out beyond some silly partisan bickering. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO, hell it's one single line you get more in a dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last three "delete" recommendations have cited as their primary reason, a paucity of current content. This is not a valid argument, given that the article previously had much more content, but was pared to this single sentence, and then fully protected. L H M 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The controversy over this slogan makes it notable and historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcronan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any media coverage of this "controversy"? West Eddy (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator – On 17:12, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC) the article was placed under full protection, under which no editors except for Wikipedia administrators can contribute to the article. The full protection expires on 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC): here's the diff page. This discussion may need to be extended, because it may not be equitable to disallow editors to make improvements to an article while it's being discussed for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Here are more reliable sources comprised of significant coverage that qualify the notability of the topic, and can be used to expand/improve the article once it is editable by Wikipedia editors other than Wikipedia administrators:

Condon, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Obama's 2012 campaign pitch: "Forward"". CBS News. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
Associated Press (April 30, 2012). "Obama Unveils New Campaign Slogan: 'Forward'". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those links discuss briefly what was chosen for the 2012 slogan ("forward") before going to discussion of the 2012 campaign itself and its message. We are talking about creating an article on the slogan itself, and other than some whining from non-notable partisans about how it reflects on traditional socialist usage of the word "forward", there is nothing out there providing in-depth coverage about the slogan in its own right. Sources that make mention of what slogan is chosen for a national campaign is a part of routine election coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See my comment below, more sources exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviosuly fails GNG, this has no significance on it's own, and Wikipedia is not a pawn for political action from any POV.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to United States presidential election, 2012. It only deserves a brief mention on the Obama page, and if it does become significant or controversial, it will be within the context of that campaign and shouldn't have to be moved again. Also, I'm getting the feeling that there are some editors who want to place what might be considered undue weight on the historical use of the term. That page should get enough bi-partisan and experienced editors that appropriate weight will be applied, and protections and blocks can be undertaken in a timely manner (copy of my comment made on article talk page). TreacherousWays (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete&redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per 'I like Ike'. If there's no standalone article for 'I like Ike' (a political phrase most adult Americans know), then 'Forward' certainly doesn't merit a standalone article. Even as a constituent in the larger Campaign article, does anyone here seriously imagine that this one-word slogan will ever belong in 'Category:Political catch phrases'? The bland slogan "Forward" is not now (and almost certainly never will be) notable in itself, and therein is its clear distinction from notable political catch phrases. Even then, editors should know that neither Morning in America nor It's the economy, stupid was ever an official, announced campaign slogan. The slogans Read my lips: No new taxes and Tippecanoe And Tyler Too were anti-candidate slogans which achieved notability despite the wishes of the candidates. If you folks really want to gnash some partisan teeth, head over to comment on the brand-new GOP-bashing article War on Women, resurrected despite an administrative deletion a few weeks ago.--24dot (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with I Like Ike comment - this is not Wiki material put under Presidential Campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolid (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail (in addition to the ones I posted above):

Memoli, Michael A. (April 30, 2012). "Obama campaign video teases new slogan: 'Forward'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Kiser, Grace (April 30, 2012). "Obama campaign reveals new slogan: "Forward"". Reuters (Newsblog). Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help) —Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. My read is that those articles talk more about what the campaign is doing and how it is positioning itself going into the Gen'l Election rather than what the slogan is (or may yet be). I'm still not seeing why this would not be better as part of the campaign article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Delete: At the moment, it consists of one sentence. And not all slogans are really article-worthy. If someone can put in verifiable info that can show notability (thought that will probably only come well after the election -- the reason that "it's the economy, stupid" is notable and, say "Don't change horses in mid-stream" isn't is that the former was memorable to be quoted long after the election in question in a context that calls back to the election) then I'd be willing to change my vote. Pat Payne (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The page is currently fully protected, in which only Wikipedia administrators can contribute to it. This is likely a factor why the article is currently very short as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a (non-controversial, I think) rename, per WP:NDASH; could someone please do a histmerge, taking the discussion at [20] across to the new TP title? I'm not very good at those. Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (changing from my earlier support for speedy deletion). The subject has received enough valid media coverage to warrant recognition within WP namespace. Per comments of 24dot, it does not presently merit a stand-alone article, although if significant coverage in reliable independent sources persists over time, recreation of the article should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are article about other campaign slogans. This is no different.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind citing wikipedia which articles you think reflect this? When it comes down to it there are SOME articles for campaign slogans, which they have due to cultural significance outside the campaign trail. MichaelJPierce (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. There may be a paragraph or two of salvageable information, but this is mostly just inuendo p b p 21:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and while we're at it, full protect the redirect against creation p b p 13:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - not notable on its own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE After reading the article and the talk page comments, it seems pretty clear that there is nothing noteworthy about 'Forward' as a campaign slogan, yet. As of this writing the previous campaign slogan 'Hope' does not have its own dedicated wikipedia page. This may be better served as an addition to Barack Obama as this slogan is not discussed in the section labeled '2012 presidential campaign'. Notably, 'Hope' is discussed in that pages '2008 presidential campaign' section. It's my opinion that this page should be deleted and integrated as a side note on appropriate pages.

Have you looked at Forward the disambiguation page for the word? You can see that there are many other pages that use forward in different ways, but those pages are usually for when the word Forward is the proper name for a position, book, or political party. Not just a slogan. You may be right to suggest a Forward (Slogan) page. However, this article is built specifically with (Obama-Biden Camaiphn Slogan) built into it. It is overly specific to keep as a generic landing point for general knowledge of the use of the word. Plus, citation would be needed for your claims. MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. There's nothing to say about this slogan yet beyond 'it exists'. Yes, we have articles on some other political slogans, but those are the ones which demonstrated long-term notability; this one hasn't yet. (I note that we don't have articles on the slogans of Mitt Romney or any of the other candidates, either. Let's keep it that way.) Robofish (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dear god it's a damn sentence! Not an article! It fails WP:NOTNEWS as well! I had no idea that an AFD that otherwise should have been a clear delete would get hounded by a bunch of off site users who just need to keep it for pollitical reasons. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page with the long history of the use of the slogan. It is key and relevent to current history to understand the values from history that current leaders are trying to emulate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.138.253 (talk • contribs) 10:13, May 2, 2012‎
Comment Maybe starting an article on Backwards (Republican Party Slogan) would help soothe Conservative concerns? The Man Who Would B.B. King (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Believe the subject is relevant.Dave Nes (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Dave Nes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Please use four tilda's to sign all comments you contribute. MichaelJPierce (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Robofish, and the fact that slogans like Country First and Change we can believe in are redirected to their respective campaigns. Doing anything else would be a purely political choice, and a very strange one at that. Even if Forward becomes a rallying cry, I cannot imagine it will echo through history like the very few US Campaign Slogans who merit their own articles (I only find three, Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Morning in America and It's the economy, stupid). If Redir fails, I would back Delete instead per WP:NN. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of enduring notability. Looks like a case of WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As indicated in other posts, there are other articles focusing on prior campaign slogans. While some may not like the prior political connotations of the term "Forward", that should not be the basis for interfering with an article that naturally evolve in breadth and depth as a vast number of Wikipedia articles do. Twren1000 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minimal and tangential mention in reliable sources. No evidence of notability except among idiot-fringe political bloggers and opinion-page commentators who are merely engaging in election-year silliness. Very doubtful that the topic will have lasting significance. Also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COATRACK. Very disturbed by the off-line canvassing on multiple sites and obvious duplicate "keep" !votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Boy, what a mess THIS is... I hate when deletion discussions boil over into the real world. Anyway, should be obvious per WP:NOTNEWS, lack of independent, reliable sources (other than those stating that the slogan exists), and the fact it was already being used as a WP:COATRACK. Easily could be covered by a line or two in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Of course, putting nothing past the insanity of American politics, if this becomes a huge campaign issue, and multiple independent sources cover it, the article could be re-created. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in the four years we've been confronted by King Obama, I have yet to hear the 'Truth', unless he was unaware he was being 'overheard'... Just another 'slogan' and means even less than moveon dot org or msLSD's slogans of 'lean forward'.. Delete It!User:LGReedLandis ☡ 02.05.12 —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete – The concept itself is not of any independent notability; it fails WP:GNG and does not measure up to a WP:1E. Any encyclopedic information belongs in the campaign article, but because the title is neither well-formatted per MOS, nor a highly plausible search term, there should be no redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 02:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. Since it is not highly plausible search term, as noted by JFHJr, don't make a redirect. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a redirect. "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)" is hardly a likely search term. There isn't enough for an independent article; the source provided does not actually discuss the slogan at all, and the "controversy" sources predate Obama/Biden's use: WP:SYN applies. Huon (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of sources

Significant coverage

Culminated from source searching and the article's Talk page: Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan). Editors: Please feel free to add additional reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic to this section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- James, Frank (2012-04-30). "Obama 'Forward' Video: President's Case For Re-Election In A Nutshell". NPR. Retrieved 2012-05-02.
- Memoli, Michael A. (April 30, 2012). "Obama campaign video teases new slogan: 'Forward'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
- Kiser, Grace (April 30, 2012). "Obama campaign reveals new slogan: "Forward"". Reuters (Newsblog). Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
- Condon, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Obama's 2012 campaign pitch: "Forward"". CBS News. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
- Associated Press (April 30, 2012). "Obama Unveils New Campaign Slogan: 'Forward'". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
- Wilkie, Christina (May 03, 2012). "Mitt Romney Mocks Obama's 'Forward' Campaign Slogan". [21]. Retrieved May 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

Beyond passing mentions, but not quite significant coverage

Wingfield, Kyle (May 01, 2012). "2012 Tuesday: Team Obama moves 'Forward' by dredging up, distorting Romney's words from 2007". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)— A newsblog source

Passing mentions

Morton, Victor (April 30, 2012). "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". Washington Times. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Salzman, Jason (May 02, 2012). "ALEC Co-Director: The Marxists Are Coming After Us!". Huffington Post. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Galupo, Scott (May 2, 2012). "What Barack Obama's 'Forward' Slogan Really Means". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Delamaide, Darrell (May 1, 2012). "Obama's new slogan raises issue of the 'S word'". Wall Street Journal - Market Watch. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Continuation of comments

Strong redirect to the 2012 Obama campaign article. A slogan that is only a few days old cannot have the sort of enduring notability that rarely allows for certain lines, like I like Ike, to have their own articles. WP:NOTNEWS.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yaksar. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete per Yaskar and others. More well-known slogans don't have articles (I Like Ike is a redirect) so why should this? Hot Stop 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. Per Robofish, per WP:NOTNEWS, and in opposition to using Wikipedia as part of the US 2012 presidential campaign noise machine. Edison (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yaksar. It's just to early to tell what role the slogan will play in the campaign at this point. --Soman (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or Delete. Thousands of factoids spew forth during political campaigns and are covered by the media. We do not indiscriminately create separate articles for all of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. City Of Silver 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the current campaign article. Though this should have at least a sentence or two over there, if not a whole paragraph, considering its coverage. Silver seren^C 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested; splitting this into an article is absurd overcoverage DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hot Stop and Yaksar — we have no way to guarantee that this slogan will be remembered after Obama leaves the White House, while a slogan that really is remembered half a century later doesn't have its own article. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. The subject itself appears to be notable, and a reasonable candidate for an article. Even though articles do not exist for most other political, advertising, or other slogans, a case can be made that this subject is significant, encyclopedic, and worthy of it own article. If we can get over the political issues, some advertising slogans are campaigns and the slogans that go with them are surely notable subjects. This may or may not be such a case. However, neither the present sub-stub, or any prior version, makes that case and in prior versions it was clearly a useless POV fork. If there were anything worth saving that would balance in favor of saving and improving the article. However, there is currently nothing to save, and attempts so far to expand the article have simply repeated partisan attacks on Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to obama presidential campaign, with a #link to a section covering the slogan. No need for a separate article now. --KarlB (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:THISISNTATEAPARTYBLOG. Moronic POV-pushing drivel... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main campaign article. There isn't yet really enough reliably sourced, neutral material on this subject. We don't need a separate article to cover every single partisan political accusation. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who will search for "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)"? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who clicks on a link to Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), especially those on websites discussing the debate over this article. Redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Comrades. We should create standalone articles for every slogan, every gaffe and every dog or cat mentioned by either candidate in this election campaign. Because for sure they will be blown up by media sources and we will have no trouble adding "reliable" cites to these articles. Another alternative would be for somebody to set up some triviapedia. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yaksar; and WP:NOTNEWS. Slightly POV-pushing + notability should be corrorborated with multiple reliable sources, which this article lacks in. All the best to closing admin! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political slogans can be notable but they need to have sustained lasting coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not create standalone articles on everything that got brief press coverage. Can't really see the point of a redirect as the title is an unlikely search term and there is no significant content to merge. Hut 8.5 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG Nobody Ent 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOMINATOR. DGG said "as suggested" which means he did not explain his rationale. So your vote will be null if you don't provide an explanation why you believe it should be a redirect despite a lot of arguments made above for deletion and against redirect. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge/Delete/whatever This is POV drivel and doesn't need a separate article except to push POV. Read what Wikidemon wrote, there is a case to be made in the future, but that isn't now. Just for my own statement, I like Ike should be separate and probably has material. :) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Redirect As of yet, I don't see that there is enough content or controversy to dedicate an article to this slogan. I think we should include the slogan and its criticism in the the 2012 campaign article. Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care reading the arguments against redirect above? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; I don't doubt that lots of sources have mentioned the campaign slogan (which is, after all, the point of a slogan) but I think it would be better to redirect to our existing article about the campaign. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is wrong. It is getting bizarre, I don't want to repeat my argument. See above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Compromise. The slogan is already on the disambiguation page and List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans. If it is still in prominent use after the president officially accepts the nomination of his party at the convention, then reconsider as a stand alone article again. In the meantime, redirect to the Obama 2012 campaign article from the disambiguation page. 5Q5 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To piss of the meatpuppets. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is a news story, not an encylcopedic topic. If this gets publicity outside the right wing blogosphere maybe we can revisit it, but until then, there's nothing worth covering here. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that this tempest has spun itself out of the teapot (it's not on Drudge's front page nor have I seen in it the last few news cycles), it appears that consensus has been reached. Without the call to arms and puppetry, it seems that editors agree the article should go. My comment is, if you delete it instead of redirecting it to either Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or United States presidential election, 2012, this will become yet another pin that people stick in their anti-Wiki voodoo dolls when they want to call it elitist, communist, fascist (never understood how we can be both - go figure), ignorant dupes of the anti-something conspiracy. Just a thought. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Slogan would seem to be the most practical move.--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, which already covers the topic. While this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources which qualifies it as a stand-alone article, it's not necessarily necessary to have one. No prejudice toward recreation if the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article becomes increasingly lengthy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, Hard to say what its value is. Its import is most likely as an example of Republican reach, past the much more visible MSNBC "Lean Forward" campaign, skipping the Jewish Daily Forward, back to 19th Century German publications. It is interesting as part of the bizarre idea that Obama is a socialist, but aside from that, much ado about not very much. Now if Santorum had gotten the nomination, he could run on "backwards" and then it would be interesting. Tedperl (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Slogan. Campaign slogans are two a penny (hmm, didn't Nixon use "Forward" too? Dirty commie!) and really do not justify their own articles; they are part of an overall campaign, not notable topics in their own right. Even Margaret Thatcher's legendary "Labour Isn't Working" slogan doesn't have its own article, nor should it. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Slogan. Not every little slogan needs an article dedicated to it. Maybe someday enough controversy/success/failure/whatever will surround the term to warrant it, but right now it is too soon. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is entirely politically motivated. Regardless of whether the statement is true, the article exists solely to connect the Obama campaign to European Socialism and Communism by way of the disambiguation page. It's a weasely approach by Conservative American Liberalists. Aside from that, though the whole article is a sentence long and totally unnecessary as a stand-alone entry. If anything, it belongs to the "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012" page, in which, I might point out, it already resides. Further, on the campaign page, the small section about the slogan is more extensively cited, so not only is this the article for deletion just unnecessary, it's of poorer quality than the sub-category on the campaign page. --User talk:Rexcactorum 17:51, 3 May 2012 (CST)
Merge & Redirect; the subject of the article in question does not appear to be independently notable per WP:NN, furthermore may I refer to WP:NOTNEWS. That being said it is related to the Obama presidential campaign, and should be redirected to that article, as suggested by others above. In its place a disambiguous page should be left in its place as other uses of the word forward that may be notable do exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Extreme Prejudice: POV-pushing nonsense. Wikipedia is not a right-wing, conservative, tea-party, what-the-fuck-ever blog. I also encourage anyone participating in this AfD to read this BS request made by an IP on the article's talk page, to get an idea of what kind of people are looking to "contribute" to this farce. If we're going to include any sort of information about the Obama-Biden slogan, it should be done on the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. -waywardhorizons (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the "redirect"-!voters: If you allow this as a redirect (which, under all other circumstances, would be judged "unlikely searchterm"), then you will get a host of redirects that are far pointier. Forward (that socialist nigniac's and his white buttboy's fascist slogan)... and all sorts of stuff. So... just delete it, salt it, and nuke anything else that comes its way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are also picked up by Google and other search engines- and search terms combining these words aren't at all unreasonable for information about the term (although this is a weak argument- we shouldn't care much about what other people on the internet happen to be doing). It also isn't unreasonable if someone is looking in our search bar for this slogan and once they type in "Forward" they'll then see as an option what they are looking for. So in the sense that matters this isn't that unlikely as a search term, and searches are cheap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing pointy about leaving a redirect. It is purely descriptive, and it will certainly calm at least some of the censorship conspiracy nuts (I know, I know, wishful thinking.) to see that it's being covered, just not in its own article. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This has been a train wreck from the beginning. At most, a brief mention in the main 2012 Obama campaign article would be sufficient. Do not redirect. Delete and salt. Safiel (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, if this ends as a redirect, the redirect should be subject to indefinite full protection to prevent article recreation. Safiel (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This is not even a real issue, and only covered by any real journalist to make fun of the paranoia. Also, if you look at the "keep" votes, they are almost all sing purpose accounts or anon IPs. Wiki is getting 'Freeped' and trying to force this idiocy upon everyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fairly clear from the vitriol of several of the recent "delete" recommendations, that the political motivation of neither side is pure. That is why I recommended something of a middle route above, but it has gotten lost in the noise. Why not just move the page to Forward (slogan) or something similar, and include the Obama-Biden use as part of that? It's not like this word being used as a slogan is unprecedented, and a decent article could most likely be formed around the general use of it as a slogan. L H M 06:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Why is this page allow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes , but Obama's must be deleted? If this is deleted, it wil only show bias and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentc (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. But even aside from that issue, there are far more reliable sources and discussion of that slogan over a long period of time than there are over this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Read My Lips" became notable not as a campaign slogan but long after, when Bush (Senior) was ridiculed at length and in public by his own political base for going back on his campaign promise. "Read My Lips" became a buzz-phrase, and is still well-known 12 years on. I'm confident that the President himself hopes that "Forward" never achieves such prominence. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator – Another user, for whatever reason, had started a deletion discussion at the article's talk page, located here: Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) – Deletion discussion. The content there should very likely be taken into consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Suggested change of article title to Forward (political and advertising slogan). Use of FORWARD is relevant based on current news cycle discussions, and there is siginficant historical usage of the term as both a campaign and advertising slogan. Also as noted previously, other political slogans have their own wikipedia entries. Coppertwins (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect-Everyone please keep your political opinions out of this. The article has multiple sources that give it enough sources on its own to be notable, but it really should be added to the rest of the Obama presidential campaign. See this one by the huffington post and this one from the Washington Post. Also, it should be noted that We are being watched.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. This is just a minor point of Obama's campaign. Please see this from a wider point of view: every political campaign has a slogan, and it's only significant as part of the campaign. We don't make separate articles for them unless there are very strong sources saying that is a topic on its own. For example, scholar books describing the historical impact of the slogan. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Even with multiple sources reporting it, there just isn't much to say about it: it's Obama's 2012 campaign slogan, and it was unveiled in a seven-minute video. That's pretty much it, and I don't think that qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. A brief mention at the campaign article would suffice. The article title might be a rather unlikely search term, but hey, redirects are cheap, and someone might see it as a suggestion in the search box. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of comments (2)

Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. What would be on topic for this article that wouldn't be equally at home in the campaign article? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, where it can be dealt with in a sentence or two. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, I believe a simple Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 would do. Allemannster (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per Enric Naval.--В и к и T 07:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While significant sourcing exists, and more likley to follow, this article needs to be watched for POV pushing.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as per above. Yeah, there is sources for the slogan, but the appropriate place for the slogan is the main campaign article, within a 4th, or even a 3rd level subsection. -- Luke (Talk) 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The slogan should be noted on the campaign article; a separate article is unnecessary. No evidence that this slogan is notable apart from the campaign. --Chris (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question How would deletion help anything? Redirecting (as I said above) would be reasonable, and people are potentially going to search for this topic — the media reports about this deletion discussion and the article itself make this otherwise-implausible search target something that people will want to find. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no ~~redirect~~ merge Fringe-y nonsense. ~~Redirecting it to~~Merging it into campaign article just distorts that article - this is a non-controversy, being drummed up for the spectacle. The slogan is already appropriately mentioned in the campaign article, but this socialist nonsense accusation is not and should not be at the present time. Tvoz/talk 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification The problem with this article is the second paragraph - and the weak sources listed above as "Passing mention" are all derived from the same opinion column in the Washington Times, last I checked. The slogan should be and is in the main campaign article, and that is what the above main sources talk about - the list above is misleading. Tvoz/talk 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you are still convinced that a redirect is not useful? It's not like the title is POV, it's descriptive. I like Ike redirects to Draft Eisenhower movement, and Yes_We_Can_(slogan) redirects to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008;I see no fundamental difference between these cases. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies - I meant to say that I was opposed to merge, not redirect - I am opposed to merging the nonsensical fringe material from this article into the campaign article. I do not have a problem with a redirect to that article for anyone who might search on the word "forward" looking for the slogan. I amended my comment above, and thanks for asking so I could correct my misspeak.Tvoz/talk 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no merge. I agree 100% with Tvoz. This is a WP:COATRACK article for tin foil hat nonsense, poorly sourced to opinion blogs, a Facebook page, and a Wikipedia article. The first sentence of this article is already in the "Early stages" section of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article, which is absolutely all that is warranted at this time. Newross (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a wholly unnecessary fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 that is neither so long that it would cause undue weight issues in the main article nor so independently notable that it demands its own article. If "I like Ike" doesn't merit its own article after 50+ years of cultural appropriation, this one-word slogan is too ephemeral to consider. - Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as redundant to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, no every minute detail of a campaign needs its own article. Hekerui (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless duplicate of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research for the closing Administrator. The "Forward" slogan currently appears on the pages below. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anon IP opinions discounted. bd2412 T 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Fight 38

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

Non-major event, not even counted on sherdog.com. Does now meet minimun notability requirements. Luchuslu (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 1. Snotbot t • c » 16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to any significance, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT. Mt king ^(edits) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jungle Fight is the major promotion in Brazil and the event is counted on Sherdog.com 186.222.49.125 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This particualr event, Jungle Fight 38, does not have a results page on Sherdog.com as of this moment, days after the fights took place. It is only mentioned on the forum page. It may be a major card in Brazil, but very few of its current fighters even meet the low standards for wiki pages. Luchuslu (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.113.206 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with no prose or independent sources. The event is for a second tier MMA promotion with no indication of how it meets WP:ROUTINE or WP:EVENT. The only source is a link to the organization's website for the results. Astudent0 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements, sports [results]. The article has no inline citations and the only attempt at a reference is a primary source which does not comply with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject". Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. The article was a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fume-Shroom

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

The game is notable, but there is no indication that this very specific element is in any way notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Plants vs. Zombies, along with any other non-notable fictional element articles which could be combined into the gameplay section. I note that a redirect is probably not the best option, as there is no discussion of this element in the current article. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deleted the so-called "references." The references were to Wikipedia itself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned railway

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

This could be a worthy entry, but at present there is no sign of notability. West Eddy (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise possible Merge with Abandoned railway station?--Coin945 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has nothing to do with stations? No... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, there does seem to be a recurring theme of abandoned railway-related things.... An article could be made out of that if the individual aticles dont work.--Coin945 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could indeed be a worthy entry so we should just wikify it and mark it as a stub. AFD is not clean-up. Warden (talk) 16:44, 1 May *2012 (UTC)

You need to at least show notability -- which this article does not do -- to keep it as a stub. West Eddy (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is only needed to avoid speedy deletion in particular cases: individuals, animals, organizations, web content and musical recordings. (Wikipedia:CSD A7 &c.) A brief skim of the search links above shows that the topic is quite notable - there are many substantial sources discussing the legal aspects of the rights of way of abandoned railways and their potential use for other purposes. Warden (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This website lists over 1,100 abandoned railroad rights-of-way in the United States alone. Also, in the US, there is quite a documentation process surrounding the filing and abandonment of a railroad grade with the government's Surface Transportation Board; this article might be a good candidate to discuss that, albeit not representative of a world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner76 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An historically significant topic, the inclusion of which improves the encyclopedia:

Schwieterman, Joseph P. (2004). "When the Railroad Leaves Town: American Communities in the Age of Rail Line Abandonment". Truman State University Press. pp. xvii–xxviii. Retrieved May 2, 2012. ISBN 1931112134
"Abandoned Railway Producing a Profit". The Christian Science Monitor. January 10, 1925. Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Farmers Salvage Abandoned Railway". St. Petersburg Times. March 12, 1936. Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Reardon, Peter (2003). "Railway Walks: Circular Walks Along Abandoned Railway Lines in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Oxfordshire". Reardon Publishing. Retrieved May 2, 2012. ISBN 1873877617
Harper, Pat (July 21, 1997). "Abandoned Railway Becomes Hiking, Biking Trail". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Byron, Ken (June 28, 1999). "Abandoned Railway Line Becomes Safety Concern". Hartford Courant . Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many Abandoned railway in earth. Feyn boy (contribs) 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Abandoned railway lines, more properly called "right of ways," continue to be very contemporary topics long after abandonments and shape both the urban and rural landscapes. Rail trails and new auto roadways for example. Besides the books found by Noarthamerica1000, another one here. [22]. G-news archives finds hundreds of articles on the topic from various localities. [23][24][25] --Oakshade (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a picture gallery and I will add some more suitable references shortly. Biscuittin (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I am withdrawing my nomination. Thanks for all of your for finding sources and adding them to the article, I am glad we could move forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Woodell

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

This is an unsourced BLP article on a living person, an actress. I added the only reliable source which refers to the list of films she starred in. I was not able to find any sources for other details of her bio (though one of the references points out to a collection of local newspapers and non-reliable websites), and, what is most important, I was not able to establish the notability, for example, any reviews of her film participation or any discussion of her concerts or whatever. Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This is one of those ones I couldn't really believe were non-notable, so I spent some time searching... and came up empty. Frequently parenthetically mentioned in relation to her character (especially when DVD box sets of the first season of Petticoat Junction were released), but totally absent is any real coverage of the actress. On top of that (AfD is not for improving articles, blah, blah, blah) the current article is rife with puffery and peacocks, so it would need a fundamental re-write. Sorry, Bobby Jo, the article has got to go. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—based on excellent source-ferreting. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although hidden behind paywalls, I have found she gets ample coverage for her career moves, and has been interviewed. Chicago Tribune interviewed her. [26] They also have an article called Pat Woodell won't be 'caged' by role from 1971 which reads "Best known for her role as Bobbie Jo on CBS's Petticoat Junction, she left the series after three years because "I was going nowhere with it. I'm grateful for the" and the rest is hidden by a paywall. Its an article about her leaving that show, and why, and what she was doing after that. 368 results from a Google news archive search, and everything that looks like something to click on and read through, is a paywall. She clearly gets significant coverage though. Dream Focus 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see through that paywall either, but this paywall to the same article gives a word count on that article of 900, I would agree that that article almost certainly provides significant coverage. I tried Highbeam to get at it, too. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one of you could edit the article and add this source, I would withdraw the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source DF found, this also appears to be enough for me to feel that WP:GNG is met. I wish I had full access to both articles, but there's enough from these two to make me think the WP:GNG bar is met, a feeling which is strengthened by a fairly wide swath of other, more passing coverage. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete bd2412 T 17:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacie Portilla

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

Cannot find any indication of notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Me either. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence that WP:MUSIC is met. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now this looks disruptive, the same editor has now created Lacie Porilla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be deleted under WP:SNOW. User was disruptive and has now been banned, no sources and doesn't meet any criteria for WP:BLP GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And an IP is now adding the same unsourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Chubby

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

WP:Notability issues. Additionally page has had one unsourced line since 5 August 2011.‎ This page should be deleted or at a minimum redirected to Category:Leaders in various Latter Day Saint denominations or Latter Day Saint movement.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my nominating the page for deletion, references have been added. However, that doesn't address the Notability issue.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was disappointed that I couldn't find more. I think it's established that he broke off from the church and ministered to African-Americans... but did it last a week? 50 years? a major influence in religion? That's where notability will lie, I think. I'll keep looking Wikipelli ^Talk 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement #Before primary schism (of 1844)) per wp:notability...just couldn't find any reliable sources Wikipelli ^Talk 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Redirects are cheap, and this is a legitimate search term. Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green-light

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

Summary: The article explain that "green light" is jargon or slang for approval and mention instances where this is the case. This purpose doesn't warrant an article and it should therefore be deleted. The article has no prospect of being improved rather than deleted. The article has no content that isn't mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and can therefore be deleted without merging. The original purpose of the article and its description in the disambiguation page is for its meaning in motion picture production, but there is no need for a stand-alone article for this more narrow purpose either.—Suggested action: If a consensus for deletion is reached the article should be redirected to the disambiguation page Green light.—Relevant guidelines: Style manual: "minimize jargon", "do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do". The term "green light" can be replaced with more common alternatives and should be avoided in articles. I've replaced the term with more common alternatives in the articles that were previously linking to the page (primarily articles about motion picture production, they can be found in my change log). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: A stand-alone article for this jargon term has the nature of a dictionary entry. In case of motion picture and baseball the meaning of the term is explained in filmmaking and baseball glossary. Merger guidelines: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." This applies to this article. (It also applies to the article start date (that's linked from this article) that can with advantage be taken care of in conjunction with this article since they fall under the same topic.) Notability: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The article has two references, one is the definition of "green light" in encyclopedia.com, the second is a (broken) link to a page about a TV series about TV production called Project Greenlight. These sources do not address the subject directly in detail. No original research: "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The sources don't meet this requirement.--John S. Peterson (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.JoelWhy (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per JoelWhy. JDDJS (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Green light" is a common term in the industry, especially when you're talking about Development and Pre-production. In fact it is the most common term for this specific meaning. Producers and screenwriters talk about getting a "green light". They don't use "looking for approval" or other generic phrases. The language is full of terms that could be replaced by another word. That doesn't mean those terms should be deleted from encyclopedias. There were dozens of articles that used the word and link Green-light until John S. Peterson suddenly removed them today. That indicates multiple other editors found the term to be appropriate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article" in accordance with the discussion guidelines.--John S. Peterson (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you know how to click on an article's History? There's even a link for it near the top of this page - one click and you can see everyone who contributed going back to 2004! I never touched it until yesterday, when I merged in the text from Start date since you were hitting that page as well. I didn't even know that page existed before, but its info fits well on the green-light page. You drew my attention when you suddenly took a common term out of dozens of film pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term is well known enough outside the film business. That Project Greenlight used the term in its title is evidence that it it well know. It seems like John S Peterson has a personal mission to remove the term from as many article as possible today. Suggest that he halts the crusade until the notability of the term is decided. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the concerns by Gothicfilm and Darrenhusted, the green light is used as a common term in the film industry. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common term full stop. Therefore WP:DICDEF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gothicfilm's !vote, article can be improved with sources easy to find. The jargon point is not a deletion argument; it may be an argument for removal from other articles, but there you have silent consensus and active reversion to suggest it's not jargon there either; and doing lots of removals immediately before AFD is not a gradualist, consensus-building process. Article is growing beyond dicdef appropriately, though there's no steroid like AFD for catalyzing the process. JJB 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Despite all of the efforts to improve this, and the comments above, this remains a dictionary definition of a common English phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Possibly move to Green-lighting. bd2412 T 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICDEF. And while we're at it, Start date is also WP:DICDEF and should be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The green light article is about a concept. A reading of WP:DICDEF shows the determination is not based on the length of the article, but whether it covers a concept or simply a definition. This is the only article that focuses on the concept of getting a green light. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the term "green light" is just a phrase that's used when giving the go-ahead to anything, film-related or not. Therefore, nothing more than a dictionary definition. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just (mainly film/TV) jargon. But its use shouldn't be purged from other articles, they could redirect to the Wiktionary article. Some text from this article could expand the latter. Barsoomian (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process Hacker

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

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced and not noteworthy Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability for this software. Dialectric (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to show any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. Zac67 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep bd2412 T 18:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulator

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

Mostly self-published sources; written by paid group account sockmasterr User:Expewikiwriter, who is known to abuse sources, meaning we can't even trust the presented facts without independent verification of them; only claim of notability - their use in a commercial and in television shows - are cited to a blog and uncited respectively, and, even if true, does not, in fact, show sufficient notability for the requirements of WP:BAND. Article was previously deleted for lack of notability; things haven't changed with the recreated version. 86.** IP (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the guy writing it is paid, the band appears to be notable.JoelWhy (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete Article suggests they'd be notable through WP:BAND with 2 albums released through major labels. However I don't see any evidence of that fact. I'm struggling to find substantial media coverage in unambiguously reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulator 2 is released by Orchard Records or CDBY or possibly even Stimulator Records, but I can find no evidence it was ever released by MGM, and if it was, they gave up the contract pretty easily. Lovelier in Black is released by Stimulator Records, not Universal. You may ask whether it's possible the named labels actually released them? Well, all I'll say is that earlier today, in a different article, I discovered him claiming the role of "Acrobat Thug One" in Batman Begins was one of the actor's "lead and supporting lead roles" in notable movies. And none of the other roles were much more notable; the most notable role of his I could find - and the only one that even appears in plot summaries - was Ryan in Cliffhanger_(film), and you can see just how notable that one is. Frankly, I don't think we can trust a word the editor said about them. 86.** IP (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not looking notable. I'm also suspicious about the articles on band members Susan Hyatt and Geoff Tyson, which aren't by the same writer but also have no evidence of notability, tho I've not tried googling them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is important or not, but the previously deleted version says that the record was distributed by MGM Distribution, which is completely different to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. SmartSE (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for transparency: I've discovered the really blatant lies I mentioned above were part of a copyvio of the actor in question's gross exaggerations. However, there's still things like the incident discussed WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Finney where the sources were used misleadingly. 86.** IP (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that even if the person who wrote this was paid, the band appears to be notable. I might be misinterpreting the standards but I'd assume their songs being featured in commercials would count for #10 (though like the page says I know that one alone isn't enough to warrant keeping a page). Here is what I could find for their releases on Dead Famous Records and Genepool Records. KhanadaRhodes (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, #10 says it must be used as part of a longer, notable work; commercials (with the occasional exception) surely aren't notable in themselves. 86.** IP (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band has a song that was included on ABC's Body Of Proof. I would also challenge the comment that commercials are not notable, when there are boards like AdTunes and others devoted to finding out what band / songs are used in commercials. VeritosNow (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable National Tours DuranDuran / The GoGos VeritosNow (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What many people don't understand about the music business is the difference between licensing a record and being straight on a record label. Many artists, including Stimulator, make their records first and are self-sufficient. They then license the records to various labels. In Stimulator's case, Universal acted as a distributor. Artists do this to retain the rights to their music. Stimulator @ The Orchard. Joss Stone, Green Day, and many other artists use The Orchard in a similar manner. VeritosNow (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion on notable compilation album - Ella Enchanted Soundtrack VeritosNow (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Selene Fiko

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

Part of a campaign of self-promotion, where machine translated articles have been created in no, sv, da, and en.wikipedia.

The subject does not meet any criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are a couple of self-published sources, but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Much of the article is clearly incorrect or a hoax – the Royal Palace in Oslo is supposed to be her permanent residence, she is supposed to have received a “silver medal of honor given by former President of Austria Rudolf Kirchschläger during a state visit”, etc. Kjetil_r 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found absolutely nothing out there that would back up any of the claims in the article. The only sources that seem to mention Fiko at all are all primary sources released by Fiko or her publisher. To be honest, the sources on the article are a joke and I encourage whomever added it to Wikipedia to read WP:BIO, and WP:AUTHOR to see what is required to establish notability and WP:RS to see what is considered to be a reliable source. (Facebook is never usable as a source, not even to back up anything trivial.) No matter how notable you believe the person is, you will always, always, always need reliable sources to back this up- especially if it is about something or someone from another country. As far as to the claims on the talk page that this is all a conspiracy against small publishers or specific people, no. No it isn't. These are the "set in stone" rules that Wikipedia requires in order to show notability. The only reason you see fewer books and authors from small publishers is because they simply lack the reliable sources to show notability. Reliable sources are sources from places that Wikipedia considers trustworthy that talk about the subject, are not primary sources, and do more than briefly mention or discuss the article subject. In this case we had several sources that mentioned the company that Fiko supposedly is a part of, but doesn't actually mention her. Now as far as conspiracies go, many times you'll get editors who edit on multiple Wikipedias because they have the language skills to be able to do so. Many times they'll notice an article that doesn't pass notability guidelines and make the necessary steps to remove it from that particular country's Wiki, then go check to see if the article has been uploaded to the other Wikipedias (which happens quite frequently). It's not a vendetta against any one particular person or anything specific, just the editor doing their job as a proper editor on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Kjetil_r, you might want to also look into DOLLx8 as well, since this is something associated with Fiko that has been deleted on many of the other Wikis due to lack of reliable sources. I'd look into these edits in particular, since this editor added Dollx8 to the mainspace [27]. Even if the article ends up passing muster, I want you to take a look at it since you're involved with this on the other wikis.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete per WP:BLP. No reliable sources given as required in bio. Only one local small Norwegian newspaper (Trønder-Avisa) source in one feature story, and most of the other sources given looks like violating of WP:BLPSPS. Nsaa (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. --KEN (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Norwegian version was the original version and it stayed there for quite a while. It was never problems with it but because in Wp everybody add something, delete something and something is happening all the time, the Norwegian version lost more and more till even the info box was was just a picture. Then it was deleted so I did not add them because I though you guys would think like the two Norwegian admins.

The truth is however she is not self publishing at all. MISOLIMA Publishing is about one year old and because it has only two books (will have all five books about Bonnie and Clyde) it does not make it less a publisher. It seams to me that this issue has got out of hand already and there is no point in wasting time with this, not for you guys that might have families to take care of and not only spend time in the front of the computer so I suggest just delete what ever you want because I realize something over the past few days, but since it's 1st of May today, Google's Knol encyclopedia is moving to wordpress.com and from tomorrow morning it's live. We will see how much easier it will be to publish something there for users like me that are not so clever as you guys. Enjoy your Wikipedia METC4F (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. The Norwegian castle has about 100 employees and about 10 lackey's but not all live at the castle, but many people do because it must be 24h service. People that lives there permanently is about 20 and there is also another book written about the same subject named "Kammerpiken" but if people don't believe it's true then what can I do? She was registered in Folkeregisteret with address Drammensveien 1 which is the Norwegian Castle and in fact me and several of her Facebook friends did visit her there in the 70's and we even spent one New Year there. Only because some feels it sounds untrue it does not mean it is. Read her book "Sølvkammerbetjentens lakei" and you will see it is true and you will know that she knows more noble people than any one of you guys do. That's just part of life when you work and lives at the castle. I would guess in UK there must be far more than 100 people working at Buckingham Palace and all of them have a story to tell if they want or can? Right? METC4F (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, just living in the castle does not give Fiko notability unless there are articles specifically written about her. Books that are written about the community that lives/works in a castle do not transfer notability to Fiko unless they specifically mention her at length. An individual does not gain automatic notability by being in a group that may or may not be notable per Wikipedia guidelines. A good example of this would be a band. The band has enough notability to be on Wikipedia, but not enough for their specific members to become notable. This concept is called WP:NOTINHERITED, as Fiko does not inherit any notability by living in a notable castle, working with notable people, or by being in a group of people that might be considered notable as a whole. It doesn't matter how many or how few there are in a group, being in a group does not give individual notability, regardless of how interesting their stories may or may not be. As far as publishing goes, being published by a publishing house does not give you notability. If that was all it took to gain a Wikipedia article, then there would be far more articles on here- including articles about some talented authors that I personally know. The thing is, even if you're published by a widely notable publishing house (let's say Harper Collins), that does not mean that you as an author would automatically have notability. It just doesn't work that way with the current rules of Wikipedia, for better or for worse. You have to show notability per Wikipedia guidelines and that's the long and short of it. It's incredibly hard to show notability since you have to have multiple reliable sources per WP:RS. You can't just claim something- you have to show proof that is put out by someone that isn't the subject of the article or directly related to them in some format. For example, Fiko could write that a gold coin drops out of her mouth every time she speaks, but unless you have a reliable source (like a newspaper) writing about this claim, you cannot show notability by posting something from Fiko, her employees, her company, or her publisher. Those are all primary sources per WP:PRIMARY and are unusable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical self-promotion of self published books. No notability proven within good sources, with the usual "It it true because I know her, and she told me so". Orland (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks good to me since it has been rewritten from its original text that was complained about. I made a search on her ISBN on the webpage of the largest publisher in Norway named Digitalbok.no and her book came up with no problems what so ever http://www.digitalbok.no/sok?q=9786169078319&l=no All4Onez (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our new friend All4Onez should know that there is a name for this: Sockpuppetry. Making new user accounts only to participate in votings and discussions like this one, is very common, very obvious and generally condemned (see WP:SOCK). If your arguments aren't good enough, they wont be any better by bringing them forward with new names. Orland (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi my friend Orland how are you and your other two Norwegian friends KEN and Kjetil_r today? Thank your for pointing out WP:SOCK (I did not read it but I can guess what it says), I'm sure it does happen from time to time by people that don't know anyting about IP's and Cookies, but the world is not always so Black and White as it seams I guess, because not everybody has just one computer to work from and there could also be a lot of people on the same IP at the same place that are following a "case", people also changes their browsers, or what ever, but rule no. #1 in Wp is still "Never let yourself be draged into endless discussions with administrators...". So I wish you all a good and sunny day and let's hope 17 of May will be a sunny day in Norway :) PS! My favorit colour is red, what's yours? TaBa80 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I shouldn't respond to socks, but Digitalbok.no isn't a publisher, its a bookstore.Sjö (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>WARNING<<<<

Sorry for posting this here but I thought it might help to make Wikipedia better and I also need to take up this matter with the Norwegian Wikipedia, because this might be a serious misuse of power by a person with administrator rights. What I say here is all true, and in fact VERY true. It's about, let me say one with the name starting with "O" who is an administrator in the Norwegian Wikipedia and the story is not something I "think" or "guess"... it is really based on facts. We (not just I) are a bunch of geeks that has enough computer and server experiences that goes back 30 years in time, so hopefully we knows what we are doing as we never give up until we find the answer for what ever we are searching for. Anne always says "If you don't know what the problem is, then you can't find the answer". It is as simple as that.

Now what we found out and got evidence for, is that this Mr. "O" that got Administration rights here and in the Norwegian Wp, in fact knows Anne and the strange thing about this is that he knows her too well (Anne does not know him though). That does not mean they are friends, oh no because what this is all about is a very deep x-family matter. Mr. "O" is good friend with a VERY, VERY CLOSE relative to Anne's X which she divorced from 25 years ago and Mr. "O" is being dragged into this old family matter and wants to "help out" by deleting everything about Anne on Wikipedia.

And it's here the story begins, because what happens when a couple get divorced and the relationship ends in such way that they never get friends again? and where the other part does not even want to speak with Anne, even if Anne is more than happy to speak, but the other person just don't want? Well this is what's happen... YOU GET DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA... because when the x-relative of Anne has a friend that happen to be Administrator in Wikipedia, then it's also so easy to tell him to delete everything about her with a big "HA HA HA" if you know what I mean?

I was really wondering why everything about Anne was deleted in such a speedy way on the Norwegian Wikipedia by Mr. "O", and why even things that had nothing to do with the books was deleted in no-time, no questions asked??? The fact is that even issues where the governments, that works with Anne, was also deleted claiming "advertising", when the facts are that if you invest in something huge and the governments works with you, then this is not advertising but public information. At least, it is not for economical gain because simply the information did not have any economical value at all. But it was deleted anyway, and it does not really matter now, but the sad part is to now know why it was deleted because we meant to live in a highly democratic world here in Wikipedia. What I mean with "sad" was just that Mr. "O" has misused the trust given to him by Wikipedia in letting him become an Administrator, with the result that not only the Norwegian Wikipedia was wiped out for EVERYTHING about Anne and what ever she does, leaving nothing behind... but also the Swedish and Danish. I think this will make the grounds for a new book or an article in the main papers beside the one or two papers Mr. "O" is working for, because as said when I started this text, I think this case can help to make Wikipedia even better. I know some would come and say, this in not the point, and I know that, but remember this was not only about the article about Anne, it was so much more than that and it's now more a principle than anything else.

I'm not here to shoot myself in the foot, but for Mr. "O" that likes to play Chess in real life, this time it's my turn to say "sjakk matt" (in Norwegian) to you. Don't forget that Mr. "O" has followed me where ever I've been on Wikipedia for the past week or so and had everything about Anne deleted and he is now trying to do the same in both the English and French Wikipedia as well, not because what's written is wrong, but because his been dragged into a family problem going back 25 years... His way to do it, is to first delete some, then more and then flag the page and questioning everything what's written, he try to make the author look like a fool, then more Norwegians comes in as say "delete" and finally it ends up deleted because one are following the other... THE END METC4F (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (edited) METC4F (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before this gets even more painful. - 4ing (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soon as possible, please, this is pathetic. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that everybody that says DELETE is from Norway... and good friends of Mr. "O" as well, same people, same faces... I agree it is pathetic, no doubt about that. Protecting each other is normal for good friends. METC4F (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that notability is not demonstrated; I could not find any significant coverage of Fiko in independent reliable sources. And for what it's worth, I'm Canadian, not Norwegian. Not that it should matter, but apparently it does. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CREATIVE #2, which is that rarity among WP rules, a rule that establishes a criterion for inclusion, rather than exclusion. It seems to me that the number of hits to verify ASF's involvement in the early, pre-personal computer days of computing, even with a casual search, are very healthy for an area that normally gets very little coverage at all. Anarchangel (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see that it is possible to apply the WP:CREATIVE rule here: It specificly speaks for "The person [that] is regarded as ..." and "The person [that] is known for ...", etc. We have so far no realiable sources to what Fiko might be "known for". --Orland (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Selfpublished author and nothing else that shows notability can be verified.Sjö (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Sjö is also friend of Mr. "O" and was part of the team that deleted the Swedish version and I agree that it was OK to delete the Swedish and the Danish version as well because I could see that my Swedish and Danish was not so good as I thought, but could been corrected if Mr. "O" did not jump up and down about having it deleted.

So what this is all about is "I tell a friend to come here to post DELETE"..." How many more friends will be sent to this page to say Delete? For user Dawn Bard I just say, being Norwegian is not a problem at all as I'm Norwegian myself, but the problem here is that Mr. "O" is dragged into a very old family matter via an x-family member of Anne which happens to be a good friend of Mr. "O". It is clear he want to "help" her by deleting everything about Anne from Wikipedia. He have successfully deleted everything from the Norwegian Wp which is every link or anything in relation to Anne. So it's not about delete or not delete, I could not care less, but it's about Mr. "O" has breached every rule of being a Wp administrator, which is a shame for the whole Wp project because it just shows that "do you hate someone? or know someone that does not like a person? Is he or she on Wp? Become a Wp administrator or just ask an existing administrator on Wp to delete everything about that person". That's what this is all about and that's what happened here. Mr. "O" and his friends deleted all subjects and references to Anne in the NoWp in one day. The question is, was it for the good of Wp? Off course not.

Mr. "O" has also articles on Wp based on his own promotional game with so to say zero references, they are short and are not even marked as a stub and if you ask me? Oh yes... he's an admin and can do so without having them deleted? They are purely there to promote his name and his book work. It's easy to see by Google his name, where most results are posted by himself on various websites - a typical self-publisher, because even his own book is not sold by a publisher anymore. He bought the unsold books to try to sell them himself from worldpress.com. To do so, he created various articles in Wp that only points to his book. It's an "bypass" and his self-promoting articles has no value what so ever, beside the fact that he hope to sell some of his books that he got in stock. Anne is in fact more then books, electronics and software as she is maybe most know for her herbs and creams sold under the brand MiroHealth and are exported worldwide. But the fact of life is still that we could live without Internet before so why is references on the Internet suddenly so bloody important? Is it impossible to live without it? or is it so that a person that don't find Internet so important no longer have any rights, like "if you're not visible on the Internet, then we don't believe you?" - you can perfectly well be both rich, famous and noble without Internet. How many people got the Noble Price that was not heard of before they actually got it? METC4F (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I suddenly reminded of this essay? The community is not a bunch of socks ... however, you might be trying to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a requirement of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and existed here for a while before the Fiko article was created. As for all of us being canvassed to come here, I can only speak for myself when I say that the only reason I knew that this article existed was because it was listed on the Articles for Deletion page, where it can be debated by many different editors. I'm just going to let you know that I am going to bring this to the attention of the administrator's board since these are honestly some pretty serious accusations you're making here. You're essentially saying that the articles are getting nominated and deleted out of a personal grudge and you're also accusing everyone here of being assistants to this personal grudge. I have to warn you that there's been little here to suggest that, and that making accusations of this nature could backfire if it comes out that your accusations are unfounded. (But if they are discovered to be true, then of course the person in trouble would be different.) I really, really suggest that you try being a little more calm about this. I'm trying really, really hard to not to sound offensive when I say this, but it's coming off more like a conspiratist rant than a debate-type argument. When making accusations like this, you've got to try to sound calm and rational or you'll end up doing more to discredit yourself than help. Feel free to chime in on the admin board post and I'll post a link to it as soon as I've created it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it here. I want you to understand that I'm not doing this out of spite or as a personal attack, but this has gone on long enough and I think we need an uninvolved admin to jump in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI! Digitalbok.no is owned by one of the 3 largest publishers in Norway named Cappelen Damm.

Tokyogirl79, I know you're independent and thank you for bringing this forward to the admin board. E-mail is also going to NoWp foundation. Have a nice weekend. METC4F (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An E-mail to NoWp foundation? Wow. Well, I understand it is important for you Fiko - sorry - METC4F or All4Onez or TaBa80 or 110.164.106.211 or AngelDNA to have an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Even lies are ok for you. This article should be deleted as soon as possible. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this appears to be a self-published author. no other evidence for notability supplied. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please, this is a rather embarrassing discussion - --PaulVIF (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely having written a book does not make a person notable by Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources provided seem to verify that this person is currently a notable writer. It is possible that her books will attract popular or critical attention in the future, and then there will be more reliable sources upon which to base an article, but as it now exists, none of the information in the article is verified by independent reliable sources. If she becomes more notable in the future, an article about her should be written by people who do not have any personal or professional connection to her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as posible to stop this embarrassing «discussion». Clearly not notable article object, so this awfulness should stop now. 3s (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as posible. Cocu (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the bad weather in Norway that makes the Norwegians to come here to post Delete? :) METC4F (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins says "All of VISA, Amex, Mastercard...they must be the same company, right?" Good one but in fact when you register for a credit card you also ending up in a database that says "declined" so it's recorded for all other credit card companies to see when you apply again. So here instead of saying "declined" the Norwegian jungle telegraph are saying "delete".

But when it comes to IP there could be many users on the same IP which is the case of say a Norwegian Technology Park in Thailand where Norwegians are working, and also has many Norwegians and friends visiting all the time. I guess the same is with DTAC and Jotun in Bangkok. Wi-Fi is a smart thing you know :) and in fact IP these days does not mean anything before everybody goes into IPv6 and Internet of Things.

With regards to users, one IP can have many wikipedia users, especially in larger companies and as more and more people uses Wp, this will also be more and more common. Using Cookies are not a safe way unless everybody on one IP uses one PC with just one browser. If somebody clever want to "cheat" Wp on IP issues as Norwegian Anne-Sophie Ofrim tried to make a point out of, it's just to use proxy servers or more easy Windows Terminal Server and hook up to friends. In that way you can really play the IP game if that was an issue but it's not as every clever person knows how Wp works and does not try to do what's mentioned herein, it's easy as that. METC4F (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, trust me, administrators know that ... most of the world knows that, but that doesn't change the fact that all of the people commenting here are, indeed, different people. In fact, if this many unique people from Norway all say she's not notable yet, then I tend to believe them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm from Norway as well, but feel that Wp is not for old living people that started their carrier long before Internet, unless your name is Bill or Steve though, so what she's known for is not in this WAN (at least not in English or Norwegian, but in Thai or Japanese maybe?) and therefore she should also be deleted. But I have red her book about Bonnie and Clyde 2 times, and I think it's good. Because the English version is soon out, she will for sure be more noble later on, but for now - as a writer, she's just to fresh to be mentioned here in Wikipedia so delete her please. AngelDNA (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nirgrantha

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

A WP:DICTDEF. The sole external link is to the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nirgrantha (Sanskrit) or Nigantha (Pali) is a word that arises regularly in the Buddhist and Jain scriptures. It refers to people who left their lives as householders committing full-time to the religious life. These people played a most important role in the evolution of Indian Religion. Therefore a young student wishing to understand these matters will be at a loss without access to such information. It is like deleting the article on the Essenes for being too esoteric. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Jainism. The current article might well be more suitable for Wiktionary than for here - but that does not automatically mean that we should be deleting it. As the article suggests, nirgrantha and its synonym nigantha (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) seem to be widely-used terms for older versions of Jainism or (particularly in religious texts) for certain traditional Jainist doctrines. The terms do not seem to be exact synonyms for Jainism, and with the number of G-hits for them, it may well be possible to write an article that deals with differences between nirgrantha specifically and Jainism in general. However, even if it is not, the correct application here of WP:DICTDEF is not deletion but redirection of the terms to Jainism together with preservation, within Jainism, of sufficient information to make clear how they relate to Jainism - in other words, merger. PWilkinson (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 11:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Maheshwari

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

Unremarkable person , doesn't has enough notability , Just one significant role in Dil Dosti Dance , its a BLP1E case . Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actress. None of the sources in the article are reliable. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 11:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 result on Google News. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent La Gamba

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

Autobiography of an artist who doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenotes:

User:Laurentlagamba, the creator of this article, has worked on the French version as well.
User:ConcernedVancouverite and I (among others) have tried to work with him to improve the article (see his talk page). He doesn't appear to be interested in discussion; instead, he just keeps re-adding the same large chunks of text that others have written about him.
Despite others having written those large chunks about him, I wasn't able to find information about him sufficient to write a sourced article. Someone who reads French may have better results.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have also been unable to turn up significant reliable source coverage online in English. There may be some coverage in French, or in offline sources. There is a long list of supposed sources listed on the page, with no links, and I tried searching for a random sample of them with no luck. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 11:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I speak and read French quite well. In French, there are a number of blog posts about him, but nothing reliable. In English, I found this: [28] but it's behind a paywall I can't get through, and it's the only one I found. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thank you for trying to find sources in French, Jorgath. Given that information, and my inability to find things in English as well, it seems he does not pass notability, and hence the delete vote now. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Carbone

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

Doesn't have any sources and I haven't found many that seem reliable or that can verify a lot of the info here. It is also an autobiography. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's possible the subject could end up being notable if some decent sources are found. I know that the people who participate in these discussions generally are very good at finding them if they exist, which is why I thought it'd be best to start this discussion. The page is in a very poor state so I figured it'd be best to find out whether or not it should even be a page before anyone spends time trying to clean it up. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure "I want you guys to look up references" is an actual criterion for deletion. The article did have references in earlier revisions. I wish there was a simple "delete anything started as an autobiography" criterion, but there's not. The references there are to such sources as Rafu Shimpo, a publication that has apparently been around since at least 1928 and likely passes the test of RS; The Japan Times probably does as well. Lack of verifiability is a reason to edit the article down to what is verifiable, not a basis for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There were signs that the subject may not be notable: written by subject, no references, and I was unsure of the reliability of the few references I found from searching. That is why I nominated it here so that a discussion could take place on the notability and reliable sources could be identified if they exist. It looks like that is what happened so this discussion was beneficial. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an entire article about him in the Los Angeles Times. [29] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is sourced at this time. Topic passes WP:GNG, so a Wikipedia article is in order:

Markman, Jon D. (April 26, 1995). "Made in the U.S.A. : Joey Carbone Packages Acts the Japanese Love. His Secret? Think Cute". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Music: Inside Tracks". Metropolis Magazine. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
McClure, Steve (January 28, 2011). "Local, foreign songwriters camp it up". The Japan Times. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Whyte, Wilson (March 14, 2009). "From the New York streets to the king of Japanese pop". The Japan Times. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 11:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom: per the sources identified as reliable. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Downtown Live

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

Deprodded with a WP:BIGNUMBER argument that 70,000 visitors = notability. However, I could only find press releases and trivial mentions ("Artist X is performing at Raleigh Downtown Live"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral they certainly have plenty of big-name acts, which would suggest (though I guess not prove) a degree of notability. Is the 70,000 visitors the total across all the 35 concerts? If so, that would mean an average of 2000 people each, which isn't really much: we'd probably (quite rightly) delete an anime or sci-fi convention with similar average attendence. So I'm split: big-name acts but (apparently) unimpressive attendence. Neutral until I see what kind of sources show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They claim here "annual attendance exceeding 75,000" (which I think tends to support that it's split across all concerts in a given year, making them small). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised Delete ...surprised because, given the caliber of acts present, I'm pretty surprised I can't find more sources. The only reliably sourced coverage I am seeing is already in the article, and it's an article about how the 2011 Downtown Live didn't happen. It actually appears that this annual event is no longer, not that that has any real bearing on the discussion. But...in lieu of proper sourcing, I think this has to be a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my own vote Additional sourcing has been found, so I've revisited my opinion here. I still think this should be deleted. It's very plainly not a slam dunk case. The sourcing that has been discovered is largely of incidental nature, however. It's mostly -- and I'm completely paraphrasing here, so assume that I've inadvertently misrepresented things if you wish -- items like "such-and-such bands have joined the festival" and "the festival is now dead." The former is utterly routine, and the latter is...well, it's not routine, but I (personally) feel like I have to discount one or two articles announcing that the festival is no longer. Beyond that, the sourcing seems plainly local in scope. Many festivals get local press for drawing a prominent act or two. Many festivals get local press for shutting down. I'd personally think a notable festival would draw non-local press of an ongoing, significant nature that truly covers the festival itself, and not simply performance announcements and such. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hasn't been sourced enough to pass the GNG p b p 16:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that additional sources have been found and added to the article after the above !vote was posted. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are some sources. These first two are essentially local coverage from Raleigh, North Carolina. They're from the Deep South Entertainment article. Perhaps these two articles could be mergeable into one. Here's the sources:

Joan Jett to Play Raleigh Downtown Live
"Charlie Daniels Band and Filter added to Downtown Live". New Raleigh. January 13, 2009. Retrieved April 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

A source from Music.mync.com/, which describes itself as "Music from Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and the surrounding Triangle area". This may be interpreted as regional coverage:

"Raleigh Downtown Live Gets A Little Better". Music.MyNC.com. January 22, 2009. Retrieved April 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

A news source currently in the Raleigh Downtown Live article:

"Raleigh Downtown Live falls by the wayside". The News & Observer. April 13, 2010. Retrieved April 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its a free concert which has famous bands at it, wouldn't it get ample attendance and coverage? Google news archive doesn't include all news sources, but still, its should have more than it does if this information is true. Dream Focus 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A Saginaw radio station does a free concert and has done so for years. It gets big names and draws 90,000+ people each year. And yet the only coverage I've ever seen of it is in the Saginaw and Bay City newspapers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The music mync site is hosted by http://www2.nbc17.com/ the local NBC station. And newsobserver seems to be a reliable site. All things considered, I say its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NBC source is still fluffy and promotional, doing nothing but listing off acts that will be there. It uses slang like "booked a string of pretty washed up artists" and an improper semicolon, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a related AfD discussion occurring for the Deep South Entertainment article, located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep South Entertainment. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More sources found:

More significant coverage from Music.mync.com/

Moss, Justin (June 19, 2010). "Downtown Live Concert Series Officially Comes To An End". Music.MyNC.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Two short newsblog articles, from The News & Observer:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per the two sources I've listed above in this discussion from Music.mync.com/ ([30], [31]), coverage in The News & Observer, particularly [32], which constitutes significant coverage, and the New Raleigh sources. This topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some of the sources suggested above are blogs etc. A mention (currently not present) at Moore Square Historic District is all that is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Often the references for a topic like this are mere notices, but a quick check of the references in the articles shows they prove notability . When a series of events warrants articles on its closure, it was notable . DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 11:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprisingly I'm with Ginsengbomb: I'm kind of surprised that for something with such big-name acts, better sourcing doesn't seem to exist. But we've looked and found nothing besides some 'so-and-so will appear' listings and a couple of short pieces saying it was ending and not much else. If there was any thing better out there we would have found it by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Discrimination. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antigentilism

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

Doesn't seem to have any notability as a stand-alone article. References only prove use of the term, but we're not a dictionary. Delete or possibly redirect to subjects like Discrimination. Dmol (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. I don't see any indication that it warrant its own page.JoelWhy (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTDIC--Shrike (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, if you look at the page history, it looks like a redirect was done a while back. Or, maybe just proposed and never executed? I'm not sure if I'm reading the history correctly on this.JoelWhy (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danan Puspito

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL *Annas* (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amstrek Rengging

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenari Star FC

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. can not find evidence of notability, there is however this: persijapjepara.com. There is a possibility that Indonesian sources may cover but I am unfamiliar with language. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karimunjawa FC

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local teams. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jepara League

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur, local "unimportant" league. Club and player only amateur on villagers. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some artcle of this league, unimportant promotion??? or Vandalism maybe??? *Annas* (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tone you used in this nomination is unnecessarily and unreasonably harsh. "Failed"? The league definitely still exists. And how is this vandalism? Nowhere near vandalism, IMO. →B music ian 11:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly non notable. The league is only youth amateur league for reserve team of Persijap Jepara, IMO this is only self publish material. This article is about local league which created with local tendentious, I'm Indonesian football fanatic who assume good faith, but I know some Indonesian still want to show up and exist with local tendentious.*Annas* (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Murry1975 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSPD Demaan

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

failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some artcle of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - author has been adding a myriad of NN teams to his league, Almost all contain the same list of player names, copied one from the other, with player names linked to DAB or bogus pages. User has been warned. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local teams. Fail WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagteam Australia

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

No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also note that the user who created the page boasts on their user page that they work for the company. Mreleganza (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do work for Tagteam Australia and have tried my best to present an un-bias view of the company, similar to company pages you would find on Coca-Cola or McDonalds. There is no promotional content or advertising material and is purely informative so I believe it is fair to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaglanville (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of promotional content, but because of lack of evidence that the company is notable. There is no assertion that it meets any of the specific criteria for notability of companies, and with no independent source, it does not meet the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because, according to WP: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many "keep" opinions are highly problematic for several reasons, including failure to address our inclusion criteria, personal attacks or possible canvassing. But there are also bona fide arguments to the effect that this event has received substantial coverage. Overall, there is plainly not the required consensus for deletion. Sandstein 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 146

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

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

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

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

This yet to happen sports event fails a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the MMA community will contribute to the individual pages and not the 2012 page. The 2012 page now has outdated fights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.44.158 (talk) — 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Nonsense. UFC 1 took place 20years ago and remains historically important; major boxing events for boxing world title remain historically important decades and decades after the events.

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep UFC events blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could the nominator please hold off creating any more of these AfD pages whilst there are on-going discussions taking place at the AfD pages listed above. There does not seem to be any consensus to delete 142/143 so why create yet another page on 146. Please wait until there is an outcome and a consensus to delete before continuing. Glen 03:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:

Those who follow the events
Betting agencies
Contestants
People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
Endorsement agencies
Advertisers
Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
Competing MMA organization
Training schools and agencies
Professional fighter groups and camps
Professional fighter management agencies

This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If only the event met WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and failed WP:ROUTINE. USEFUL is not an argument which traditionally plays well in AFDs. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original poster referred to WP:SPORTSEVENT as a reason for deletion, however I come to the opposite conclusion. A UFC card is a collection of fights (usually 12), as such this meets the definition of a season or series. The Main event is a UFC Heavyweight World Championship fight, which is of particular notability. This card has gained further notability even before the event as one of the main event participants was removed due to failing a PED test. Furthermore, the policy states "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements'. the UFC (although MMA is not a team sport)is the top MMA promotion in the world. Its heavyweight championship is the most notable possible achievement within the sport.Trok333 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Trok333 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep per reasons listed by Trok333 --Pat ^talk 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of votestacking, or are you just assuming because the votes are lining up against you? -- Tim314 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact I can't even believe we have to have this conversation again in 2012. 68.224.160.47 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— 68.224.160.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I really resent when this gets tacked onto my comments on the talk page for an AFD. I'm a regular contributor, just not a REGISTERED contributor. I don't feel the need to have an account, and I shouldn't have to sign up for one for my opinion to have validity. This kind of elitism, that your opinion only matters if you're a "regular" or "registered" REALLY needs to stop. 68.224.160.47 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because not having separate pages for each UFC event would lead to an incredibly long and incredibly cluttered 2012 in UFC events with too little information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.232.91 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — 90.222.232.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a fan site, and a projected sporting event in a minor field has not received and is quite unlikely to receive sustained, long-term coverage. Come back when you have articles in books or scholarly journals, or when you have major coverage in news stories published months or years after the event happens. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly journals? This isnt a science article. Portillo (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For all the reasons I and others already posted on the UFC 145 discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.168.101 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — [[User:67.194.168.101]|67.194.168.101]]] ([[User talk:67.194.168.101]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.194.168.101]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:67.194.168.101]|67.194.168.101]]] ([[User talk:67.194.168.101]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.194.168.101]|contribs]]) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

This one was my comment, sorry I wasn't logged in. You can see from my edit history it's not a single-purpose account. Also, I wasn't canvassed, I visit the page for each UFC event to check whose participating, and I noticed the deletion proposal on this one and the discussion on the UFC 145 article. I frequently use wiki to check past events as well, reviewing a fighter's history before his next fight --as I believe many people do. Tim314 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria stated at WP:Notability (sports), in my point of view, although that guideline doesn't have this specific case, I think it fits as this event is kinda of a Final series of other sports, and this kind of event usually recieves front page news from various diferent countries all over the world.

Not only by the championship fight, Overeem was supposed to fight Dos Santos, but as he got caught in anti-dopping exam, this will certanly lead to a suspension in his MMA Carrear, enduring this event lasting effect, as Overeem may fight the winner of this fight.

At WP:Deletion_policy#Editing_and_discussion there are alternatives to deleting an article, such as improving it, as this event didn't even happened yet, there is a lot of ways in improving it, therefore, making it not an "sport score article". - Ricardo1701 (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep not having separate pages for each UFC event would lead to an incredibly long and incredibly cluttered 2012 in UFC events with too little information on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.76.192 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 06:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the idea is ludicrous. As others have said, amalgamating information from all events into one page would mean a very long, cluttered, confusing and anarchical entry - that aside I feel each event requires its own page since It does not contravene any criterias cited and these events are big enough to warrant to their own entries. I don't think this sort of entry should be compared to the lack of entries for other sports. They have much simpler formats such as one time playing another set team with a simple resultant score. With MMA, you have a whole bunch of other issues surrounding the run up to the event and the actual event itself. Like boxing matches, with these sorts of events, the emphasis is on individuals and their performances, not teams of 12~15 people on each side. I think the issue here is more the fact that there are many more UFC matches than there are boxing matches for example. If you had a Tyson V Holyfield, or Pacquiao V someone or Mayweather v someone every month, you'd have seperate entries for each of those matches. It's just that boxing doesn't have as big a talent pool. Volatileacid (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Volatileacid (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

The ONLY reason this page is up for deletion is because Mtking doesn't like MMA. It has nothing to do with Wiki guidelines. These events are no different than a Wiki page for a play, a NBA season, or a movie. If these pages are deleted, it just shows that trolls have gotten too much control of Wiki and are now saying what does/doesn't belong in an open, public encyclopedia based purely on their own dislike of the sport. This is ridiculous to even have to defend this page. Mtking has, along with his friends, been stalking users and blocking them for suggesting that this page shouldn't be deleted just because 1 troll doesn't like it. Again, deletion of these pages makes it apparent that Wiki is here for the trolling mods with ego problems. Stalk me, block me, I don't care. I will speak my opinion. I'm sure this will be deleted by one of the mods who has been actively stalking me but he can read it. Tell me that this is "out of order" just like the other factual comments I made, but what's out of order is actively trying to destroy the purpose of this site. Free information for all, as long as the trolls who run Wiki are OK with it......right.

If these pages go, so should the America's Top Model pages that Mtking is so found of. Those are vastly less notable than a sporting event that isn't entirely scripted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)— 70.147.72.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.147.72.167 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Strong Keep This is a Heavyweight Championship fight which will be broadcast in multiple countries around the world Fraggy1 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Fraggy1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Strong Keep I think the UFC has a special degree of cultural significance among sporting events because the format of the event is designed to allow various culturally significant martial arts to be tested in the safest possible environment. This allows participants to be uniquely culturally representative of their country and their countries' traditions in a way that other popular sporting events such as basketball, football, baseball, or American football can't. The specific event information follows the success of each location through data about the gate, and it tracks things like fighter pay which are economically significant and can vary from event to event, unlike other sporting events, in which they sign long-term contracts which last several years. Additionally, these articles track pay bonuses which are individually awarded in each event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiScott (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — SenseiScott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SenseiScott (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment Due to the large number of AfDs on MMA event articles I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. I would invite anyone interested in discussing what MMA events should be considered notable to join the conversation. --Pat ^talk 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hesitate to comment but I hope the "keepers" will take this as constructive suggestions and insight into the "deletionists" mentality. "Articles about notable [sporting events] should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Currently, UFC 146 appears to contain only "routine news coverage of such things as [fight] announcements". If MMA event articles (UFC or otherwise) included more prose discussing the significance of the event, the background of bouts and the fighters involved in them, what happened during the bouts, and any after effects of the event then "deletionists" will have less to argue from. As concrete examples of what I'm referring to look at UFC 94 and UFC 140 as articles that contain significant amounts of well-sourced prose that discuss all aspects of the event. If a particular event is notable, the article should explain why it is notable and UFC 146 fails to do so. You have to look hard to realize there is a championship match on the line. There is significance that this is the only UFC event to have a main card of only heavyweight fights. There is/was huge controversy surrounding the original main event when Overeem failed a pre-fight drug test. None of these issues are discussed in any great detail. If they were discussed for more than a single sentence, it adds weight to outsiders (non-MMA viewing folks) that this may really be a notable article and will help support the "keepers" case. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This event is still weeks away and is of signifance because it features a championship bout as well as an all heavyweight main card. I won't reiterate the other valid reasons identified early, but let me also point out that the event hasn't even happened yet which makes this article largely a work in progress. This isn't the final version. By the time the event happens, clearly more notable things will take place and provide plenty more information to be incorporated into the article. Deleting this article would be extremely premature and obviously just selfserving as TreyGreek and MtKing try to force their omnibus down everyone's throat. Pull lead (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a major event, the heavyweight title is being defended and it's an all heavyweight main card. It is very notable. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignoring 180 Pages of precedent? Dare I say there is more to this issue than prose? Perhaps someone making a power play to assert their ideology of what Wikipedia is / is not. --Boston2austin (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 07:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm really surprised people are questioning standalone UFC articles on notability grounds. I'll try to provide what background I was able to find in about five minutes of research, and will provide citations upon request. UFC has been picked up in primetime by a major US network, Fox, which saw a 42% increase in viewership over previous Fox offerings in that timeslot. In South Africa, an MMA event (not UFC) pulled in a 25% rating, which bested more established (shall we say "scholarly?") sports such as rugby and cricket. All the major sports sites such as Yahoo and ESPN have opened up MMA-specific subsections to their sites. 700,000 Americans plunked down $25 to watch the last UFC event. UFC in unquestionably the global apex promotion of MMA events. We create a dedicated page, most of which with sub-articles, on every ATP Challenger event (the second tier in men's tennis), of which there are far, far more events in a year than there are UFC events, and although I can't find any research specifically comparing ATP Challenger tour coverage and interest vs. UFC coverage and interest, I would be shocked if the Challenger tour is as widely covered, or as popular, as UFC events(yes, I know, I know, wp:otherstuffexists). The notability and popularity of MMA in general and UFC in particular should be readily apparent to anyone who does the slightest bit of research and looks at it without bias. Mreleganza (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that my KEEP entry above (along with others) has been appended with a (Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Volatileacid has been canvassed to this discussion.) I need to CATEGORICALLY deny that this is the case. Please look through my history; I edit a wide variety of articles and have done so for over 6 years under this account. It appears Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) may have a personal agenda in relation to adding these tags to various comments throughout this page especially in light of the fact that he/she has created AfD pages relating to UFC content previously. Back on the 9th of December 2006, you will note I made an edit to UFC 8!! I hope any other administrators reading this will note the apparant conflict of interest by certain administrators here excercising personal bias over logic and rules. Volatileacid (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You being canvassed has nothing to do with your past edits you maybe be confusing that with SPA. Mt king ^(edits) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is a very notable planned event from the most notable mixed martial arts organization in the world. Hell, it's an event with the main event being a heavyweight championship bout. Where is the difficulty finding the notability and lasting effect here? --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOCKPUPPET INVESTIGATION Nintendude64 is currently part of a sockpuppet investigation here.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. Yeah, by some raving lunatic whom I'm going to be filing an incivility report against if he keeps it up. I found this AfD while I was looking at UFC events... which I've done for a long time because it's a quick, reliable source on upcoming UFC cards. Do not try to disparage my !vote with irrelevant information, thank you. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that is in your opinion, because the sources have not been forthcoming to support that, and secondly, notability is not inherited, in other words the notability (or not) of UFC has no relation on whether an event they host is notable. Mt king ^(edits) 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that a UFC event has wp:notability issues? Like the UFC or not, that assertion is completely ridiculous. I realize that anyone can fabricate some narrative and make contorted interpretations of Wikipedia rules to support their own agenda, but if a UFC event doesn't rise to the level of wp:notability, then apparently we've made some bold leaps on what constitutes wp:notability while I wasn't looking, which would then further demand a complete reexamination of a large portion of the Wikipedia corpus on Sport. This is a trivially easy keep. LoverOfArt (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that LoverOfArt (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

!@#$%^&* @ "an editor has expressed concern that this user has been canvassed to this discussion". That, ladies and gents, is what you call a 'baseless accusation'. Apparently, this article has arrived at that tragic point where a narrow group of agenda driven partisans are employing 'wiki tactics' to advance their position. I'd seriously suggest this be thrown up the food chain. If we delete this, then we go back and re-examine every single entry on other notable, one-time sporting events, with deletion the implicit outcome. Bad facts make bad laws. Topical ignorance makes bad rules. An agenda is afoot. LoverOfArt (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:NOT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT these events are comparative to a football match or a baseball game, once they finish they get the routine coverage any sports event gets and then they move on to the next one, there is no demonstration of any enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 07:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "these events are comparative to a football match or a baseball game, once they finish they get the routine coverage any sports event gets and then they move on to the next one, there is no demonstration of any enduring notability," is blatantly untrue on two fronts: while there are there are hundreds of NFL games and over a thousand NBA and MLB games a year, in 2011 there were just 24 UFC events (not including 2 "TUF" TV shows listed on the wiki page). Due to their comparatively infrequent nature, they are far more notable than a run-of-the-mill baseball game, which brings me to your second canard. Because of the relative infrequency of UFC events, they almost always include championship events/title defenses which are discussed in the media both long before the match and long after. These two statements are so plainly obvious and verifiable in seconds that you make it difficult to assume good faith and not to suspect you simply do not like or respect MMA and don't want much of it in your Wikipedia.Mreleganza (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are comparative to football CHAMPIONSHIPS, AFC and NFC, you won't see an individual article for every AFC championship. If you can so easily find mainstream sources for these events, ADD THEM. ADD a SINGLE article that shows something other than this fight happened and so and so won. Hell, you show me the article, I'll do the rest. You seem to confuse popularity with notability,even if popularity were the basis on which to only judge notability, UFC cannot touch American Football,Soccer,Baseball(well maybe only if you include Japan),Basketball,etc.The biggest issue here is WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter, This event only needs a non MMA only source that shows something other than ROUTINE coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on why the most fitting comparison for UFC events is NFC/AFC Championship games, and not, say, NFL Playoffs? I'm not understanding the distinction, other than one has dedicated wiki pages and the other does not. At any rate, per your request, here are two non-MMA sites that saw fit to cover specific details unique to UFC 146 and not merely just listing fight cards, times and locations, etc. This one notes that it is the first UFC event wherein every fight on the card is a heavyweight bout: http://www.csnwashington.com/pages/video?PID=1iMLTB-YbFeATxWmGfRBRcap9Pd02U6MHLkA3Am Here is one that reports on how the actual title fight and the main event of the card had to swap out the challenger after the original challenger tested too highly for testosterone and lost his license to fight in the state where the fight is being held: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/04/25/ufc-star-alistair-overeem-banned-for-2012-after-failed-drug-test/ These developments are not earth-shattering, but they do go beyond the simply listing the matchups, place and time, and my citations come from non-primary, non-MMA devoted news organizations. As such, I do not see them running afoul of the guidelines written in WP:ROUTINE (although I now see they are already noted in the UFC 146 article so I reckon you have already rejected these claims. If you have, I'd like to hear your reasoning and how it squares with the wording of WP:ROUTINE): While storylines exist for every sporting event, I don't see how these are any more routine than those cited in, for example, the 2007 WGC-Bridgestone Invitational or, so help me God, the 2012 Morocco Tennis Tour – Rabat, which contains nothing except event results. As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says, "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." (emphasis mine) I have tried to provide these comparisons to existing sporting event norms on Wikipedia WITHOUT relying strictly/solely on them. Mreleganza (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mreleganza::First I congratulate you on finding a single source that does in fact start to demonstrate significance, I don't know about the video link, but the post article is exactly the kind of thing we need for a significant event, the biggest problem I see is that this is still a future event and fails WP:FUTURE, I didn't realize that earlier when I offered to help if you'd find the sources. I'm going to work on adding the sourced material from the post, I would also ask that the closing administrator save the page info so it can be recreated after the fight easily. If you could find one more source that would be helpful, to supplement the video, i don't really want to try and watch that and type out quotes/prose. We may be able to get this closed as keep with the addition regardless of WP:FUTURE, to demonstrate the good faith towards MMA articles that are properly sourced, and meet the policies that have led to others deletions. Te way you keep repeating the WP:OTHERSTUFF language actually just does damage to your argument,I use AFC champinships because they are the Championship games, UFC doesn't have playoffs, they have fights that lead to championship bouts.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also might use thie search, the top three hits are totally WP:RS,https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=overeem+testosterone&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=di2wEymOWlGZ4VMfp0SXtz2VcTl8M&ei=haahT7G4EYTGtgfA9dSBCA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQqgIwAA

Here is a written source that should supplement the video, which speaks to the unusual number of changes "domino effect" as the article calls it) to the main card, and also makes mention of the all-heavyweight main card that was a larger point of the video: http://www.sportsnet.ca/mma/2012/04/24/ufc_146_drug_test_changes_schedule/ Mreleganza (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep Not even a discussion. WWE events, the Superbowl, the Grey Cup, Stanley Cup Finals, boxing cards, all have their own pages. Seems a case of a user who dislikes the sport trying to get rid of it. Killswitch Engage (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep The deletion request, identically to all the "notability" tags on other UFC event pages is completely ridiculous. Such tags should be cause for instant blocking of the deletionist perpetrator and reconsideration of the apologist drivel behind which he or she hides, pretending that this is proper procedure in keeping with Wikipedia rules and regulations. Go ahead, put a "civility" deal on next. That's what goes with this isn't it?--Achim (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments above for this AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is obvious trolling in multiple MMA articles, would a sane administrator please put a stop to this?

-- Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - So we've established that newmanoconnor, TreyGreek and MTKing are behind this on every article. Everyone else opposes it. Can we get a decision? LoverOfArt (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Mtking seems to be trolling wikipedia. He has wanted numerous UFC Articles deleted. The user seems to either be attempting to troll or dislikes mma. User has said you don't see this on Football , because Football only has to due with one match. Wikipedia also is the most significant place to find UFC information , other than the UFC website itself , and Youtube. Wikipedia has been updating UFC events ever since the very first UFC, UFC 1, and is now at UFC 146. The page can also reveal that if a fighter 'won' or 'lost'. People have been know to put a fighter won when they didn't. Also the user (Mtking) seems to only target UFC Events. Leading me to believe that he just doesn't like or respect the sport. If he was against MMA completely , articles on Strikeforce or Bellator would be flagged for deletion as well. The user should be warned about constantly flagging UFC events in what is basically for fun. The user has also seemed to disrespect article supporters , saying things such as "but the page does not cover everything that happened in the event , sports like Football , Basketball Soccer , and Rugby do not update every event they do. The user just does not seem to give valid , believable and/or correct information. The user should be given a strong warning. --TheShane39569 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, obviously. This event has and will continue to receive coverage in large mainstream press outlets. MMA and the UFC are past the point where articles such as this one (and the related ones nominated for deletion) specifically need to cite those sources to satisfy editors such as the nominator. And just generally, when a deletion nomination says something like, this article is "currently only sourced to..." that's not a relevant piece of information if other sources exist that establish notability. The article could easily be sourced to ESPN, USA Today, or countless other publications, and the nominator could have figured that out by doing a Google News search. This is wikilawyering at its worst. It's highly misleading to imply that the article must cite sources that establish notability. That's not the case; the article must cite reliable and verifiable sources so that readers know that it contains good information. The point of citing sources is not to preemptively defend against spurious AfDs, and we should be clear about this. These articles are immensely useful to readers who want to find information about these events, which is why Wikipedia's practice has settled into its current form of individual articles for all of these events. My argument for keeping applies to all related AfDs. I'm not going to copy and paste it, though. Croctotheface (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care enough to read the entire above discussion, but the event has received coverage on multiple mainstream sports websites. For example, TSN, one of Canada's largest sports sites [33] [34] [35] and the British ESPN [36]. In fact, a Google News search shows coverage from a lot of non-MMA sources, such as Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and FOX News. Not only that, but because of the controversy surrounding the positive drug test of Overeem, there is the potential for this page to be inproved upon quite a bit. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RedBubble

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

Delete. It is a non-notable company. It is a recently formed (2006) company with a only 20 employees and a turnover of a paltry $2.5 million. It is essentially a run of the mill company. Current notability guidelines will allow this article to exist but the guidelines are in dire need of updating. I say this for a number of reasons:

Popularity of WP has increased making it a magnet for advertising commercial organisation
Decisions in AfDs are commonly made by reference to guidelines rather than making a judgement on a case by case basis. I don't think this was always the case
Paid editing appears to be on the increase so articles about commercial organisations will increase. My perception is that this is the case but data would have to be generated to see if this is true
WP:OTHERSTUFF means that we can allow an article for a company even though their competitors do not have one. This creates an unfair advantage. It is not an issue for the likes of say Microsoft or BP since they are so well known an article on WP has no effect on their exposure, but for a small company as the one discussed here they may well get benefit from having a WP article.

I think I made an attempt to tighten up the guideline at WP:COMPANY in the past but it went nowhere. And this highlights another problem. The bureaucratic behemoth of the Wikipedia project and the conservativeness of active editors stifles any necessary change.

Sorry about the essay. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The great thing about an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is that it is not contained by publishing costs to only cover the most important topics. There still must be some limit, so that companies no one has ever heard of, that have no reliably sourced information available about them cannot turn Wikipedia into an advertising agency. The community has drawn the line by deferring to the judgement of reliable sources about what they will bother to cover. Here, there are multiple, unambiguously reliable sources that have provided substantive coverage of the subject, the information in the article is verifiable and the article clearly meets the WP:GNG. I disagree with the notion that we need to move the line on companies to be less inclusive, but if we are to do so, it should be done at well announced RFC to change policy, not by deleting articles that currently pass the requirements set out in policy. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An AfD discussion is not a proper place to change guidelines. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs have been used as "case law" and as a means of developing or honing policy in the past. And note that I have actually put forward an argument for deletion in this specific case. To turn the tables, you now have to give a rational for your keep !vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Per WP:CORP. I have never said delete when an article obviously meets the notability guidelines. It is not my obligation to try to refute you in an AfD when you are proposing guidelines changes because of this type of articles. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think perhaps the nominator has the wrong end of the stick. We have an article because enough reliable sources care to write enough about the subject for a reliably sourced and verifiable article to be written - WP:Whatever guidelines are simply descriptive of common outcomes and rewriting them does not change the fundamentals. Though Redbubble has probably made efforts for things to be written about them the fact remains that the writing has happened. Size or importance is largely irrelevant. There are large publicly listed companies that have no articles, and may not get them, as no-one writes about them. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Discussion about changing the notability guidelines for organizations and companies should occur at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), rather than in individual AfD discussions for articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd argue against the nominator's "run-of-the-mill" argument, this is quite a unique venture; it combines the online community thing with merchandising, and seems to be quite successful at it. The article as it stands is a bit of a smear piece, gives a lot of weight to controversy without really describing the site very well. The Interior (Talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclaimer: I am the creator of the article so I have waited to comment. Firstly the article was created due to the debates that took place at BLPN, and at the Martin Hosking talk pages, over negative press about the company (Red Bubble), of which Hoskings is CEO. It was suggested by some editors that a Red Bubble article be created to resolve the situation. I felt there were sufficient sources and so I undertook the task. I vote 'keep' because I don't feel it is our policy to delete articles based on the number of employees or sales. Notability and reliable sources are the criteria. I also echo the above sentiment that negative content is being given undue weight (by other editors) in this article and would invite editors here to participate in editing it to insure neutrality. Lastly, I would say that I have great respect for the nominators massive edit history and good faith efforts to improve WP. However, nominating the RedBubble article for Speedy Deletion shows some significant misjudgment IMO as the comments here are all strong "keeps". This is probably due to fatigue and maybe spending some time on other types of WP activities for awhile would be helpful. Cheers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't read my essay? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the nomination for discussion but your nomination for speedy delete without discussion, in this instance, was an overzealous action in my opinion. I say that with the greatest respect for your good faith dedication and achievements on WP. Further, it was/is not my attention to offend you in any way and if I have, I apologize. Peace -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do love WP now I am getting to know it. Have kept out of discussion due to a WP:COI. I will say I am not aware of anyone connected to the entry in question who has had any role in editing it. I have kept an eye on it but I can assure you would be a very different piece if I had done any editing. Will leave it with neutral editors to evolve the article in due course. And I agree it should be kept because in and of itself it is a company which is interesting and generates interest reflected in third party verifiable sources. XcommR (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by User:Jagadhatri. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of C.I.D. Special Bureau episodes

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for deletion an unreferenced list of episodes. The list has nothing encyclopedic in it. Only episode name and date of airing. Wikipedia is not a Directory.
Previous AfD was closed (non-admin) by nominator in Oct 2010. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

York City Rowing Club

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

Subject may not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Of the two independent sources listed, one contains only a passing mention of the club, as do many of the other articles mentioning the club on the York Press website. Google's search and news pages show little of any significance. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG:

"Reunion for York City Rowing Club legends". The Press. March 17, 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Big crowds drawn by York Rowing Club Summer Regatta". BBC. June 21, 2010. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Bean, Dan (March 5, 2012). "Sports clubs receive Olympic windfall". The Press. Retrieved 12 April 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Liptrot, Kate (March 7, 2012). "York rower still oar-some at 80". The Press. Retrieved 11 April 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLUB. (Declaration: I know a couple of former members of this club but have neither been a member of the club nor resided in York myself.) Some further sources to complement those identified by Northamerica1000 are [37][38][39]. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Certainly seems to have the makings of notability. However, the consensus amongst commentators is that the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources is not present. I am happy to userfy if anyone is prepared to sourced up the page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Surayea

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

This may not qualify for speedy delete, but as it is just a C.V. w/ no good references, it certainly needs to be deleted one way or another (or else completely rewritten, if this guy meets notability requirements.) JoelWhy (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cv, unremarkable person, fails WP:GNG, only hits on Google news and books are his WP article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Power electronics. Sandstein 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power electronics technology

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

This page is a content fork and substantial duplicate of Power electronics. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a pretty clear cut duplication of Power electronics and I think that the inevitable conclusion would be to merge. Editor who created it (and a significant editor of the Power electronics article) User talk:P-Tronics is a newbie who IMHO was occasionally treated badly by Wtshymanski. They also asked me a general question about article scope definition, but not this specifically. WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. Hopefully they will participate here and we can have a nice discussion here to sort this out. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Userfy / Merge There is the most facile and skin deep resemblence between the articles, and a huge amount of content in "P e t" that is not in "P e". Try taking the content from one and copying over the other and See Changes; it is striking. It could make another article or it could be merged. I only support a merge if the material is actually included, not one of the "redirect and forget" actions I see so often. Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator A merge would have been preferable but the tag was removed. The two articles are about the same subject, it's not Wikipedia style to have multiple articles on the same topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do the merge. Also I'd talk to User talk:P-Tronics to explain that this is for the best. It would be take a couple weeks to do the merger, especially with my schedule, not to try to instantly implement with an AFD closure. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge with an added trout to Wtshymanski, who's past hostile behaviour at Power electronics is what led to this content fork. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps you could give a reason for your !=vote rather than just attacking the nominator. Edison (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[40] [41] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain what your raw citations are supposed to prove. Edison (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Power electronics technology into Power electronics. The Power electronics technology article has a significant amount of sourced information that is not in the Power electronics article. This would significantly enhance and improve the Power electronics article. The more generically-titled article "Power electronics" is where information about its technology and technological advancements should be merged to. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Northamerica; that is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments above. And take enough time to do it to REALLY retain the material. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pîrşan

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no particular attachment to this article (or to Alexandru Moisuc), but doesn't WP:PROF criterion 6 imply that university heads tend to be notable? And he is the head: a rector is what Romanian university presidents are called, and he definitely is now rector. Of course, it's not an especially significant university; even at the level of agronomic institutes in Romania, Timişoara and Iaşi are second-tier (below Bucharest and Cluj-Napoca), and since WP:PROF speaks of heads of "major academic institutions", we might say USAMV-Banat doesn't qualify and thus Pîrşan shouldn't have an article on the basis of his position. No vote from me for now, just some ideas. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs of a Virus Programmer

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

Page reads like an advertisement for a book from a very small publisher. Citations do not actually talk about the book or its author. TheNate (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. I did a quick Google search and didn't come up with anything significant.JoelWhy (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed all of the worst of the article (which ended up being most of the article in general) and added the only source I could find: a Pop Matters interview/review with the author. Other than that, there is literally nothing out there that isn't a primary source, a merchant site, or an otherwise unreliable source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only one useable source. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert to dab. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parmalee

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

The only sources are local incidental coverage dealing with individual members' shenanigans. I could find nothing non-trivial on the band, just local sources saying "Parmalee is performing at X". The band is signed to Stoney Creek Records, which is an assertation of notability, but their page there is just a placeholder, suggesting that they haven't released anything for the label. (Even regarding their signing to the label, I could find only press releases.) I work for a country music website and am "in the know" about new acts, and so far we've gotten no word on Parmalee releasing anything for Stoney Creek. I think this is merely a case of WP:TOOSOON — they're close to notable but not quite over the line yet. If/When they release something for the label, then most likely they will pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:::Nothing here indicates notability.JoelWhy (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until this edit this served as a disambiguation page. It should probably be converted back into that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support reverting to a dab, but only if all the edits related to the band are deleted. If the band becomes notable, they can be moved back to that title since they will be the only thing with the exact name Parmalee. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources have been presented by Trevj that he believes demonstrate notability but that have not been evaluated or impeached. I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Cart

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. --J (t) 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Bulwersator (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any outside coverage that would reasonably allow it to meet WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT. Not great refs, but I did find a couple of books[42][43] and a university work[44]. Surely there must also exist some articles in newsstand computer mags? -- Trevj (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm of the opinion that topics which have been the subject of an actual published non-vanity-press book are notable by default. This appears to have several. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VirtueMart

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edie Parker (Canadian artist)

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

Delete. This artist produced a sculpture of some note (but without a WP article) but that does not confer notability on the artist himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given [45], abd other references for the work, there should be an article on either the sculpture or the artist. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Our game (sculpture), as it seems the sculpture is of more note than the article. Edgepedia (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say the sculpture is of minor notability and as a stand-alone article I can't see how it could expand beyond what is written on the artist's page. The artist, likewise, is notable if at all, for this one piece. I'd suggest moving the whole thing to the Hockey Hall of Fame with the applicable redirects. freshacconci talktalk 17:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep either under the artist or the name of the sculpture. Stuff like [46] and [47] indicate that there is coverage about it. It is all related to the Hockey Hall of Fame so I as a secondary opinion, I have no objections to Freshacconci's suggestion of merging to the Hall of Fame article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great piece of Canadiana whose creator deserves to be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyjack1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Definitely no consensus for deletion - the discussion on whether to keep or merge would probably be best continued on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Springs Hospital

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

I found no significant coverage. The notability of patients does not make the hospital notable. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to Paradise, Nevada. Not notable. The article contains no independent sources. Google News Archive provides some coverage but mostly trivial and all of it from a single source (the Las Vegas Review-Journal). --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recommendation quoted below, I now favor Merge. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - larger hospitals are usually kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Jose Hospital & Trauma Center, but I'm not sure if one with less than 300 beds could be considered large enough to be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think for Nevada it's large enough. Hospital articles are a problem: hospitals as a class rarely get more than notices and routine incident news coverage, at least in sources that are available to us here. In any case a merge and redirect is appropriate; its a community institution certainly important enough to be included in the article on the place. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the town's article. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. If hospitals rarely get significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, then they are rarely notable. They aren't automatically entitled to stand-alone articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Desert Springs is one of the older acute care hospitals in the area. In the past, it was know for it's quality of care in several areas. Much of that information is not on line making citing these facts difficult. This issue is not a reason for deletion since the notability was there. This is a cleanup problem and AfD is not article cleanup. I'll note that there is a general issue with hospitals. They seems to be covered by the consideration that all acute care hospitals are notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you want it kept as you are the author of the article. We can't just go by your word about the coverage when you don't specify where the coverage is, how long the coverage is, and how much it focuses on the hospital. I don't get this nonsense about all big hospitals deserving an article. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline and this article doesn't even come close. If they rarely get coverage, Wikipedia should not include all big hospitals as Wikipedia is not a business directory. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Vegaswikian. please note, for future reference, that the possessive form of "it" is not "it's". If reliable sources do not exist, (regardless whether online or in tree-killing print archives) then the notability is not "there." If it exists in some newspaper archive offline but residing verifiably in a library, then cite it as such. Edison (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "All acute care hospitals are notable"? That is not what is says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals#Guidelines, which makes it clear that hospitals have to qualify under WP:ORG for a standalone article. "Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name." Based on this I am changing my recommendation from "delete or merge" to simply "merge". --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG's opinion appears to be based on a misreading of the article. Sandstein 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HammerSickle

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

Delete Not significant, minor faction that received 3.2% of the vote several years ago; only two sources one of which is from a site affiliated with the group the second of which only mentions the group in passing. Tagged for original research, non-notability and relying on sources close to the subject. Downwoody (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even 2% of the vote is significant enough. We should have very liberal interpretation of the standards for notability of minor political parties because of the usual bias in coverage, and the ease at which we display our own political feelings that they are unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood, this group did not receive 3.2% of the vote in a general election. They are not a political party and you're incorrect to suggest that they are. They are a tiny faction within a minor political party and received 3.2% of the vote at a meeting of that minor political party! That's probably why there are no independent sources establishing this group's notability. Downwoody (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to FalceMartello. This is the name of a publication, rather than an organizational name. The organization dates back to 1983, and has a nationwide presence. --Soman (talk)
Delete per nom and JayJasper. As to Soman, there are no sources establishing either the age of the group or its "nationwide presence" and those claims are not asserted in the article. No independent sources establish notability. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Software quality#Software quality measurement. I assume somebody will eventually fix the Newbie Capitalization. Sandstein 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software quality model

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

Article is of low quality and is covered entirely by Software quality Camjackson89 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Camjackson89 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Software quality model is a notable and important topic that we ought to cover. However a redlink would be more honest and this article isn't worth the bytes. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a redlink be better than a redirect? Redirecting this title seems to me to be more helpful than deleting. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an appropriate target to redirect it to. A WP:REDLINK indicates that we have a notable topic but don't have an article on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so different from software quality that it needs a separate article? Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly because software quality is simply too big a topic for a single WP article. All we can do there is to build an index of topics, with a large number of sub articles. Some of these will be about "The quality of software", others about "Why software has a quality problem", "How to measure software quality", "How to build quality software" and "How to assure the quality of the software being produced".

A "software quality model" is an abstract construction that maps measurable features of some chunk of code (lines of code, number of comments, conformance to coding standards, cost) onto another map of value perceptions about what's important in software (usability, speed, cost, feature points, trust in its reliability). From these you might then construct one or more KPIs to give a simple manager-friendly number for "good" or "bad". As software is complex, this model is surprisingly complex too. Formal work began (AFAIR) in the 1970s with pretty well-known (although now hugely superseded) works by McCall and also Boehm. In the last decade though, we've developed software quality models that are actually useful and mean something, can deliver this meaning during development, not afterwards, and we've also developed management approaches that can feed the results of this model back into the ongoing management of a project, such that competent software projects now deliver working products on time and budget.

So it's a notable topic that's worth covering. It's also distinct (and worth covering separately) from some broad "software quality" article. Maybe this current article is (per nom) "covered entirely by Software quality", however it shouldn't be, if it was the article it ought to be.

However the article we have here isn't that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now to Software quality assurance. That article is really short anyway, so I think the model discussion can be covered as a subtopic of QA in general until it grows too large. Steven Walling • talk 00:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Software quality#Software Quality Measurement. The model and the metrics are highly related and development in that context makes sense before spinning this out a child article. - Whpq (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested, to Software quality#Software Quality Measurement. There is not enough information here for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkypeMorph

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

Non-notable software Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One academic paper does not meet threshold required to establish notability. created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting sounding software. I wish the project well but it fails WP:GNG due to insufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs)

Keep - (Comment from article author) I've let this ride a week to so that I may address objections in a single post.

SPA:This is my first article. Everyone needs to start somewhere so, please, AGF and DNB while I play catch-up with the community.
Notability: I first read about this concept in Ars Technica on 3 April but only considered it for publication after it was mentioned on Bruce Schneier's blog about 2 weeks later. I will update the article with these links presently.

I believe, therefore, that SkypeMorph meets the WP:GNG conditions.

If notability is the only concrete reason for the AfD please review and verify the validity of the complaint in the guidlines - specifically B.2., C.2. and D.1. through D.3.

On a side note, SkypeMorph is not just another piece of software, it is the implementation of a concept. A concept that has much value in terms of freedom of speech in countries where people suffer government subjugation and any tools that can help their voice be heard are advantageous to humanity as a whole. As such (and because Wikipedia is a reference compendium) it seems fitting that this method of obfuscation and stenography be included in Wikipedia in the hope that more Wikipedians can make their voices heard in spite of authoritarian censorship.

Please close this issue as soon as possible. If the judgement is in favour of keeping the topic I respectfully ask that the AfD banner be removed from the article post-haste! If there is a delay of more than a week from today (i.e. after Monday, May 14 2012) then I will remove the banner and mention the decision in the Talk page of the article with a link to this discussion.

Themoother (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References now added to SkypeMorph article.Themoother (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- there is no set time for AfD discussions. Only administrators can close these discussions and remove the banner. Dialectric (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry Themoother. This looks like an interesting concept but it doesn't yet meet WP:GNG. Multiple supersources are required. this is one. We need one, preferably two, more for this to pass WP:GNG and blogs don't count no matter how many people blog about it. What we need is more news articles from news sources with editorial oversight. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 11:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

StarKid Productions

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

Non-notable troupe with an entire cluster of non-notable items, each with its own article(s), all created by a tiny coterie of SPAs. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely DO NOT delete! They are a notable theater company established in Chicago with a huge worldwide internet/cult following. They have been written about by many major magazines and newspapers such as Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, and have appeared on shows such as Access Hollywood, MTV, VH1 etc... Their albums have charted on iTunes and Billboard, one coming in at #1 on Billboard's Top Cast Albums, topping the musical Wicked, and another one making Billboard history as the first student-produced college musical to reach the Billboard charts (even topping Lady Gaga and Glee). Their concerts have sold out at notable venues and their plays have gone viral, having been viewed more than 100 million times on YouTube (hence, the need for the linked articles about the plays). It is also co-owned by Darren Criss, a notable person.--Mimi C. (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand where your idea of StarKid Productions being unnotable has come from. You haven't cited any actual Wikipedia guidelines yet, and as far as I know, the StarKid articles pass the notability guidelines fine. The fact that you also tagged 'sub articles' for the same vage reasons without an actual discussion of StarKid's notability is shocking to say the least. Eladkse (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere's ample coverage of this company; the sources already in the article (Chicago Tribune, Michigan Radio, Hollywood News, HuffPost and others) are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I wouldn't be averse to seeing the sub-articles trimmed and merged to this page (and seeing some of the more trivial content edited out altogether), but StarKid Productions clearly meets the requirements for notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, obvious troll is obvious. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wall Street

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

This page shall be deleted because of the unproductive nature that is awfully prevalent on the talk page in which discourages new contributors, as what I have noticed by looking through the archived "topics". There remains to be increasing hostility towards new contributors or established contributors all together who would like to update the Article, itself, either by doing a minor or a major edit to comply with the official Wikipedia Guidelines, and not the irrelevant and unofficial guidelines which most of the "active" contributors tend to consistently repeat to new contributors and old contributors alike. The article is filled with fallacies that resulted in the POV tag and has not been addressed on the Talk Page at all. This article deserves to be deleted for the sake of the credibility of Wikipedia, and possibly the opportunity of starting over with this entire project in the future. Furthermore, the view history of this article alone shall tell you, the administrators, that this article cannot be repaired by merely locking it up because it has been locked up, and nothing productive occurred. The writing, structure and sources that this article uses have been hugely disputed and been challenged but there has been consistent revert, after revert, after revert from users who act as if they owned the article, itself. This article hasn't been updated properly because of the attitude of some users, and their hostility towards new contributors. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator is the latest sockpuppet of a banned sockmaster, User:CentristFiasco. I've re-opened the investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco‎. See here for the discussion so far with this user. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In all respect, this alleged case is irrelevant to the case at hand and is, essentially, hijacking the deletion case for this user's personal vendetta with the user, "Centrist Fiasco". Furthermore, this user posting a sockpuppetry case in a case involving article deletion is in clear violation of the rules, itself. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of best-selling girl groups

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

Like List of best-selling boy bands, this list is based heavily on OR. The talk page is stuffed with "Why is X on here?" "Why is Y not on here?" and edit wars aplenty exist over who should and should not be included. Some editors have spammed the article with subjective examples of a "girl group", and the article is based entirely on editors' opinions. To quote that article's nominator, "Omissions and arbitrary decisions therefore affect the rankings calculated and shown. Sources used to support the sales figures do not classify or rank any of the bands in this manner, so each resulting list is the product of original synthesis." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of these issues are insurmountable. The designation of a band as a "girl group" is commonly made in the media, and WP has other articles that use the term. By focusing on album sales it achieves a degree of objectivity. The fact that the talk page is full of idiots has no relation to the merits of the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't like or agree with the rankings then try changing the format of the list. Warden (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem though. No one can agree on the rankings, so no amount of changing will fix it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, there's no end of pedants who can't agree on hyphenation or the spelling of yoghourt but this is no reason to delete everything. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However, a quick spot check reveals that the sourcing needs improvement, and existing cites should be verified. For example, I found one claim of 50 million albums sold, but the cited source said 45.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs)
Comment ~ Clean up the sourcing, and you'll gain consensus more easily on rankings. I suggest using more Nielsen SoundScan ratings, and RIAA, where possible. — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that consensus. The consensus on what a "girl group" is. This list arbitrarily includes and excludes many, with endless edit wars over said inclusions and exclusions. No one can seem to agree on what is and isn't a girl group. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you need to start by gaining consensus on how to define a "girl-group". Seems like common sense to me, especially since all the groups I see mentioned at the page consist of only female members. Did I miss one? Which group on the page is contentious and why? — GabeMc (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think consensus can be gathered? The talk page is overstuffed with people arguing back and forth about who should and shouldn't be on here, with nothing even remotely resembling a consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but it takes effort. I would start with the sourcing. Until you improve the overall sourcing of the article it will be easy to argue for errors. Start by double checking all citations. Then agree on which standards to apply. Have an RIAA column and its easily sourced online, global sales figures are more difficult to verify, but many of the article4s current sources are good, it just need to be tightened up. Not a silver-bullet I know, but its where I would start. — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the problem of "what is a girl group anyway?" with sources that only verify the numbers. Yeah, that makes sense... Not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why has this been AfD'd? I assume good fatih, but the nominator's concerns can be addressed without deletion. What makes such a list eligible for deletion? Till I Go Home (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love how all of you are ignoring the fact that THERE. IS. NO. CONSENSUS. ON. WHAT. A. GIRL. GROUP. IS. Do I need to make it any clearer?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, please answer my above question, "which groups on the page are contentious", as far as I can tell, all the groups listed consist of all female members. Also, regardless of this contention, which does not make the article a candidate for deletion in and of itself, the sourcing is generally somewhat poor, and needs to be improved either way. — GabeMc (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the whole damn list is contentious, if the talk page is anything to go by. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and adding sources are not grounds for deletion. And a girl group is a collection of female singers that harmonise together...I don't know how clearer that can be. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Also, there's no need for such an article like this. List of best-selling music artists is perfectly fine. We might as well also create List of best-selling male singers, List of best-selling female singers, List of best-selling rock bands. — Statυs (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is a female equivalent of this List of best-selling boy bands and actually I think list of best selling rock bands, male and female singers etc is a good idea. Why lump everyone together in one big giant list? That's not practical. Krystaleen (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.L. Rapson

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

Manager of a hotel in the 19th century. Other than the fact that he is mentioned in a history of the hotel there is no real claim to fame here, so in my opinion this guy isn't sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a significant historical accomplishment for the entire region. The hotel attracted guests from across the country and O.L. Rapson allowed the hotel to experience a high level of success. Moreover, many of his innovations propelled the hotel to become a tourist mecca. He was a substantial figure in Southern Illinois history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman4312 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Oscar L Rapson findagrave.com entry, no help. No listing in the Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas online. Dru of Id (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I unapologetically insert here a recommendation that benighted self-internees of the AfD dungeon brighten their drab lives, if only for a few brief, precious minutes, by visiting the article on Glenn Goodart, who replaced Mr. Rapson as manager. Mr. Zimmerman's children decided to allow Glenn Goodart to take over management of the hotel even though he only had one leg gives you a bit of the flavor. Notwithstanding the comment (above) that "many of [Rapson's] innovations propelled the hotel to become a tourist mecca," this Goodart fella was unquestionably the man who made it -- if only temporarily -- the local hotspot, as described in the section entitled (I kid you not) Burning down the hotel. EEng (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines Mr. O.L. Rapson should qualify for inclusion or at the very least merger into another article. First, the hotel was tourist haven that saw thousands of people from across the United States visit the hotel during his roughly four year tenure as manager. Second, Mr. O.L. Rapson has been mentioned in multiple histories of the region and was extensively covered in one book about the hotel. During the time period he managed the hotel he was mentioned in newspapers across the country. Moreover, there are a large group of people who are interested in this topic and allowing his Wikipedia page to remain may allow other people to contribute more information about Mr. O.L. Rapson in the future. Therefore, this article has merit and should be allowed to stay. contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman4312 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about his accomplishments matters unless you can point to the "multiple histories of the region" you mention. So far all I see is the Nolan book on the Wabash hotel, and an apparently routine newspaper account of the hotel opening. Anything else? EEng (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~[striking duplicate recommendation -- please make only one summary recommendation during the discussion] The following are some, but not all of the "multiple histories of the region" I previously mentioned. 1. Faces & Places, A Pictorial History Of Wabash County Illinois by Phil Gower (Hardcover - 1997) 2. WABASH COUNTY ILLINOIS VOLUME 1 History and Families 1824-1993 Wabash County Illinois(Hardcover - 1993) 3. Mt. Carmel Area Sesquicentennial (October 1965) 4. Numerous newspaper articles. Moreover, in the coming years as more newspapers make their old collections available at places like the Library of Congress more of his accomplishments and biography will be revealed. Lawman4312 (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add some quotations to the article to show that these are more than just routine descriptions typicically found in local pictorial histories? EEng (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added more quotations and information to O.L. Rapson's Wikipedia article. Is it possible to allow the article to remain in Wikipedia now? Lawman4312 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've started a couple of articles, largely using the Nolan book as a source, but I'm worried. None of these people seem to be anything more than typical hometown figures who led decent lives and were remembered fondly by those who knew them. That's nice, but it's not notable. In the case of Rapson, all the coverage appears to be routine newspaper coverage of the hotel opening, Kiwanis club luncheons at the golf course, which is not the significant coverage (of Rapson) called for by WP:GNG -- plus the Nolan book, which is self-published and therefore not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Is there something I'm not seeing? And there's something else: from your username, I'm guessing you are associated in some way with the Nolan book. Is there something you want to tell us? EEng (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am not understanding the continued resistance to allowing Mr. Rapson's Wikipedia page. As previously stated Mr. Rapson is mentioned in more than four PUBLISHED works, one SELF-PUBLISHED work, and numerous newspaper articles. By the way, according to Wikipedia guidelines:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

   1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
   2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
   3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
   4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Moreover, as already mentioned more information will be able to be contributed by allowing Mr. Rapson to have a Wikipedia page. Additionally, as far as the WP:GNG guidelines are concerned I think this more than qualifies. First, he opened and managed a national resort and a famous regional country club during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. The hotel attracted famous people from across the country and advertised in a majority of the major cities newspapers during the 1920's. If given time to remain it is likely more information about the other major events in his life will be contributed. That seems to more than surpass the "typical hometown figures" you previously described. Further, if you examine many small town Wikipedia pages you can see links to people that are less notable and not cited but are allowed to remain in Wikipedia.

Next, if you have a moment please review the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers page. My main goal in contributing to Wikipedia to preserve history and write interesting creative articles that are Wikipedia worthy. After reading your last post I am feeling "bitten" or threatened. I checked my other posts that you mentioned and all of them cite independent relevant sources that are published. The "Nolan" book, which you stated I used "largely" as a source is troublesome since I usually list the book as further reading because I think it is a good source and it inspired me to contribute much of this information.

Finally, from the beginning I have tried to compromise and find a consensus. This article could be edited, more content added, or merged. I am trying my best but I have not seen any flexibility. Lawman4312 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my experience those who know enough to cite WP:BITE don't need its protection. Rapson managed the hotel, made chicken dinners, maybe brought in gangsters, got fired, opened a store, and got vandalised. Where's the notability? EEng (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EEng,

I want to begin by thanking for you your frank criticism and insights. My first posting of this article was not Wikipedia quality and through your helpful comments I have been able to add better quality information.

Now, to address the substantive matters. I believe notability is met because Mr. Rapson managed a national hotel, golf course, and was probably involved in organized crime. Moreover, please consider the fact that in less than seven days I have been able to significantly increase the quality of this article. If given more time I and others would be able to continue to contribute and make this article better. I feel that it is not fair to pass ultimate judgment on this article after less than a week. Would it be possible to give this article more time to show its quality? If given time I know I can contribute more information that would satisfy the Wikipedia editors. What's your opinion can we find a consensus? Lawman4312 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about the article but about its subject, Rapson, and it's not decided by what he did but by the substantial coverage he's received, if any, in reliable sources. This is a disappointment to you, I know, but your work to date has only gone to demonstrate that such coverage doesn't seem to exist. Nolan (self-published) is not a reliable source and the newspaper mentions of Rapson appear to be routine and superficial -- that's why Rapson fails WP:GNG. Sorry to say it but the same is probably true of the subjects of the other articles you've created based on Nolan, with the possible exception of the hotel itself, based on the newspaper coverage. Sorry. EEng (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not inclusive about articles on local figures, but I think there is suffiicent significance here, and adequate referencing. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out the notability-qualifying references, bearing in mind that Nolan is a non-RS (being self-published)? EEng (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Alexander (actress)

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

BLP without enough notability. None of her roles are the kind to make someone notable. Mostly single-episode guest appearances on TV shows. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but couldn't find any evidence of the significant, independent coverage that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searched for her last night with no luck either. A number of other people/things share the name but even allowing for that, didn't find anything noteworthy/reliable for this specific Brandi Alexander. Mabalu (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11. No prejudice to recreation as a sourced, non-promotional article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School of Physics & Applied Math

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

I doubt that this institute is notable and with this general name nothing is relevant found, moreover this article is totally unreferenced and using peacock terms; original PROD was removed with a promise of any change, but nothing changed. mabdul 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no verification that this place even exists other than a Facebook page and an entry on Google Maps. It apparently has no website. Its name is far too generic. I suspect this if it exists at all this is a small private enterprise with no notability. The fact its acronym is SPAM is at best amusing and at worst accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably by SNOW Clearly not notable, but they removed the prod. I doubt there are useful sources to add. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Northwich Victoria F.C. season

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

PROD constested by Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY consensus that clubs must compete in a national league (so for English football, from Premier League down to Conference National) for season articles to be considered notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same guidelines:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, as well as going against consensus at WP:FOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTY per nom. Team is notable, seasons at a level this low are not. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While seasons for other clubs at this level may not be notable I think exceptions have to be made for teams that have competed at a national level. The season itself should not be taken in isolation, but as part of a wider series of articles. Owain (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reading though the various comments here, various good points made on either side, but in the final analysis it seems clear that (as an editor noted below) "There is little or no connection between the disparate publications of the same or similar name other than similar ideological outlooks." While the publications listed in the article are indeed individually notable, there does not appear to be a unity between them except in terms of sharing some name and being socialist in character. As several editors raised, this is a significant synthesis case.

We already have a disambiguation page, Forward, and of course various publications can be listed there.

Thanks for all comments. Neutrality^talk 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

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

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

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

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

This is a candidate for deletion because:

- it is Patent Nonsense (CSD:G1)
- it is being used for a blatant political attack which constitutes a violation of WP:BLP.
- it appears to be being gamed by a compromised account
- the only two sources on the page are invalid because the first does not concern the topic and the second is related to the political attack above.
- it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.

I have thus submitted it to be deleted. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I know why this article was created. It was a "disambiguation" deliberately made to cause tilted mentions on the top of certain pages. See my re-edit comparison here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New slogan by Obama-Biden 2012 campaign. There ya go. If you're far enough on the right wing loony fringe even a tepid, unprincipled, warmongering, capitalist centrist like Obama looks like a Socialist; ergo, out comes the POV tarring brushes for an exercise in Baffling 'Em With Bullshit... Carrite (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as disambiguation page similar to The Times (disambiguation). Currently this is something of a dictionary definition, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That disambiguation page already exists. I'm not sure what the original motivation for creating this article was save for tying the word "forward" to the concept of "socialism" for some strange reason. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The gratuitous mention of Obama's campaign slogan in the article history is of course completely inappropriate, but I don't see the nominator's rationale for deletion as valid. It is not patent nonsense. The fact that it has briefly been the subject bad editing is irrelevant, as is the nature of editor User:Spazoto. I'm predisposed to thinking that a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but if not then the article should be converted to a disambiguation page (as suggested above) instead of being deleted. Peacock (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, a disambiguation page for the word "Forward" already exists. I have looked and can find no sourcing to ever indicate any notable papers being written on the word "Forward" being uniquely associated with Socialists or Communists over any other group; indeed, quite to the contrary there are a large number of other groups and newspapers as well as counties, states and countries, that use the word "Forward" as all or part of a slogan. Could you please give an example or draft of what such a supposed disambiguation page - or addition to the existing page - might look like? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too much work to simply take the list of publications currently in this article and format it per guidelines at WP:MOSDAB and have a good disambig page which collects similarly named topics. Peacock (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try your suggestion. I note another problem here: the page lists The Forward, a Jewish-American newspaper published in New York, as a "socialist publication" when it is not so. I think I spy WHY this page was created in the first place on that basis. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the change to the disambiguation page here. Will it suffice? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd also endorse rewriting as a disambiguation page similar to the The Times as GabrielF suggests. The page content clearly demonstrates a pattern and is not original research. I could see this article as being expanded with further sources, or in its current state being turned into a disambiguation page pretty much leaving the lede intact. Regardless of either of those two solutions, I see absolutely not grounds for deletion here. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 20:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [NOTE: Self-applied strike, please do not revert.][reply]
Keep. "I'd also endorse rewriting as a disambiguation page similar to the The Times as GabrielF suggests." This article is fact based. There is plenty of information to back up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.66.98.98 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 97.66.98.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment. Yes, it is fact based but the question is whether it is encyclopedic to have an article on the concept. Initial consensus of participant appears to concede that at least a disambiguation page is warranted. AfD's run a few days before any decision is made so there is still plenty of time to save the article by expanding it. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [NOTE: Self-applied strike, please do not revert.][reply]

It's clear why some want this page eliminated. Obama chose "forward" as his campaign slogan. The historical use of "forward" in a political sense is now embarrassing to him. Thus the page must be removed. This is an effort at political censorship. Obama chose the word for his campaign. Wikipedia should not protect him from the consequences. The choice of "Forward" as his slogan should have been more carefully vetted. It wasn't. Now the Obama campaign should have to live with it. And just because someone uses the information on the historical use of "Forward" in socialist and communist publications to oppose the Obama reelection is insufficient reason for Wikipedia to delete the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.195.186 (talk • contribs)

PLEASE stop it, Nintendude64. Not funny. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What the hell is you problem? Why are you trolling your own AfD? --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH The fact that there is a series of political hit pieces about this, combined with a repetitive WP:BLP violation on the subject, doesn't register with you? This is not an effort at political censorship. As I note, on closer inspection the original writer seems to have slipped into his list of "socialist" newspapers The Forward, which is a Jewish-American paper published in New York and has absolutely nothing to do with socialism; in other words, it appears this was one of those "hey look jews are communists" troll articles, well written to slip by at first glance and nothing more, which happened to become popular with another group of political troll types later on. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Forward was founded as a socialist paper and was quite famous for being so in the 20s and 30s. GabrielF (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article, while a snub, addresses a specific list i.e. the names of socialist publications using the term "Forward," therefore it is not nonsense.

Nowhere in the article does it address a current political situation in an attack method, therefore it is not a Blatant Political Attack. (Please note that if someone uses this page as a reference in a Blatant Political Attack, that does not mean that this page itself is a Blatant Political Attack.) An Argument can be made that since each of the items listed in the list are references, and each of those publications have references including the applicable websites of said publications. Therefore, ample resources are listed. Finally, it is impossible to make a valid argument that referencing a publication's name in an article "discussing publications' names" is not a reliable source. Therefore the arguments that (SkepticAnonymoustalk)use for deleting the article are not valid arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs)

— BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- User:BabyDoc23 has no other edits than this AfD, and is thus the same as the anon ip commenting above, seemingly an attempt to fake a wider consensus by gaming the AfD. Striking out his/her comments. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proof, Soman? Thought not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyddabarber (talk • contribs)

After further research, it appears the creation of this article was a racist attack designed to stick the name "socialist" on the page of The Forward in an oblique and unnoticed manner. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment. This AfD is one of the weirder in recent times, and I'm not sure were to begin. I'll try it like this:

1) The rationales for deletion given in the nomination are faulty. To try to invoke BLP, CSD, etc. is blabant nonsense. Accusing other editors of racism, is not helpful either. User:SkepticAnonymous needs to take things down a notch, for the sake of reason. 2) One questionable edit is not a basis for deletion. There is no relevance to the Obama edit to the article, and that passage can be switfly removed. 3) The article in question is one of the those cases were it got started but never took off. My ambition has however been to expand it further than a disamb page, to give an historical overview of the name in the socialist movement. Recently, I found some material that could be used for an expansion, mentions of how the name fell out of fashion in Soviet Russia following 1917 (see Nachrichten). I'll try to search for other sources as well, to provide more detail. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble with your logic, Soman.

1 & 2 - The article has been the subject of continued IP-based and new-account (in one case a presumably compromised account, which makes more sense than an account last used in 2009 spontaneously returning) vandalism trying to insert mentions of the Barack Obama presidential campaign; these are not-coincidentally connected to spreading blogposts based on a Washington Times hit piece. In short, it's a vandalism target.

3 - You have only one source for the entire article, and even that source doesn't qualify as an WP:RS. This has existed in that state for months, apparently unnoticed.

4 - I have a big problem with the publications you choose to list as "socialist", starting with The Forward. There has been a long habit in right-wing circles post-WW2 of trying to tie the Jewish religion/people with "socialism" as a cover for anti-semitism, and to behave in this manner is simply beyond the pale. There is absolutely no reason on wikipedia to have a "disambiguation page" that labels any page referenced by it "socialist" when the generic disambiguation page Forward can do just fine to differentiate PUBLICATIONS with similar names, as currently written for Forward#Publications in an actually neutral way.

I ask in the name of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV that you see why I have strong objections to your incredibly non-neutral creation here. There is simply no reason to try to tar any pages, people or groups with an epithet-by-disambiguation when it can be so easily avoided. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I have trouble with your lack of logic:
- 1 & 2. "Continued IP-based and new account"? That edit conflict is less than 24 hours, if we were to delete every article that attracted bad quality edits at some point, we would delete most of the relevant material at wikipedia. If there would be persistent vandalism, the page can be protected. But we are very far from that stage now.
- 3. In what way wouldn't the source (Ismael) qualify as WP:RS?
- 4. Interestingly, The Forward itself choses a different approach than you: http://forward.com/articles/10461/forverts/ --Soman (talk)
  - I have more trouble with yours.
  - 1 & 2. When I cleaned up the article from the vandalism that was ongoing, it removed more than 50% of the article. It wasn't even a well-written stub.
  - 3. While Ismael makes the assertion of "common use" of the word, there's no actual research in the quoted section to back it up.
  - 4. The fact that a publication took a "social democratic" bent does not make it socialist, and in fact, the source you quote points out that it was ardently anti-leninist. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Final point: if you think you can write your article in a neutral manner, and I see you're trying, please do so. I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong about it and seeing a well-written article rather than a stub of garbage sit in that spot. But the fact remains, an article shouldn't do dual duty as a disambiguation page, especially when it ends up tarring linked pages with a term commonly used as a political epithet. Forward#Publications is far better for disambiguation of any publications using permutations of that name. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OH PULEEEZE. Are you serious, SkepticAnonymous? Racist? Now your true colors have come to the surface. Just another proggie who starts screaming "racist" when the argument is lost. Time to grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.195.186 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and WP:OR-padded WP:POVFORK of Forward#Publications and totally implausible search term. --Lambiam 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -OR at best, patent nonsense at worst. This is Campaign 2012 fooliganism related to the new Obama campaign slogan, with the Right Wing POV warriors starting the offensive to skew WP content with a view to affecting public perception of that campaign. Start taking names for the inevitable topic bans to follow. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the almost unthinkably unlikely event of a keep result here, note that this is an improper name for an article. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this is a ~~POV~~ fork of the valid disambiguation page Forward. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry Carrite, but since when do I qualify as a 'Right Wing POV warrior'? --Soman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having just finally looked at the edit history, I was just diving back in to remark that it's hilarious that this was started by Soman, who is a long term, quality editor on this topic. My bad. The title is still improper and the page still needs to go bye-bye, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improper disambiguation page of Forward. Key publications merit their own pieces; else this is a random accumulation just sharing a name. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article creator in a short amount of time has put in the work to begin saving this article. Aside from the fact that this AfD is quite frankly bogus on all counts listed, I think the work has been done to justify keeping this as an encyclopedia article rather than trimming it down to a disambiguation page. I've stricken my earlier comments which suggest this possible course of action. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - it's fairly obvious to anyone that Nintendude64 is the sockpuppetteer behind most of the IP vandals showing up on the page as well as trolling this discussion and violating WP:CIVIL quite often. As well, nobody has yet explained why the deletion of an unnecessary WP:POVFORK deliberately designed to be used for nasty political and anti-semitic insinuations is controversial to anyone but anti-semites. The AfD submitter has shown how easy it is to implement the content in a NEUTRAL way on the ACTUAL disambig page as well as an affected page by the slimy linking scheme, and so there is even less justification for this page's existence than might have been claimed at the outset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.28.112.235 (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. And it's fairly obvious that the sockpuppet investigation, which SkepticAnonymous never bothered to post on my talk page, went nowhere. If you continue to harass me, I will be filing an incident report. That being said, you comment will not disparage my !vote. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 18:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was mentioned on Rachel Maddow tonight (if I heard it right) and may be driving some of the traffic to this page and its AFD. ☮Soap☮ 02:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambiam & Carrite. WP:FORK, improper disambiguation page.--JayJasper (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Serves no valid purpose. Just a useless WP:POVFORK of the existing disambig page. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP The page was around before the Obama campaign chose their slogan. Wikipedia should not allow censorship based on shifting political winds. In a few weeks this will be a non-issue. Just leave it be. Why not protect it to limit the vandalism? The page can be kept without it being fodder for a political attack. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I might try to give an explanation as to why the article was started (in the spring of 2011, obviously without any linkage to the Obama campaign). I had wanted to write a passage for the Vorwärts article on other publications named after it, but was then confronted with the fact that there had been 2 'motherships' so to speak, and it was not possible in a non-OR way to determine which was related to which. The conclusion is that the term, or better said the name, has a specific place in early modern socialist discourse. For me, the intention was never that the article would merely be a link page or disamb, but would be dedicated to the evolution of the name and its usage. The subject is notable, it is not OR, it is not POV, and Wikipedia should not be tailored to fit political campaigns. Btw, 'Mitt' is the Khmer Rouge word for 'Comrade'. --Soman (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (actual thought is Merge). The difficulties Wikipedia often has with English is American politicians warping political, economic and social sciences, primarily through the misuse of terminology. Simply reading the end of the article on Liberalism makes it clear that associations within the sciences are foreign to US citizens. This is amazing as I've had three required high school classes that cover the terminology objectively. It would be nice if Wikipedia required the correct and scientifically objective use of such terminology.

That aside, however, the term, "Forward," became a political point in the transitional period between the Enlightenment and Liberalism, as noted by the State of Wisconsin's own adoption of the motto in the 19th century. The Wisconsin Idea that followed this era would lay the foundation of US Progressivism, giving US citizens direct elections of Senators, progressive taxation, compensation for on-the-job injuries, regulation of private infrastructure upon which the public depends and some protection and extension of rights for former slaves.

These points made, as this article is over a year old, I'd say only politiwag editing wars have really made this stand out as an AfD. My logic isn't the editing as much as the novelty of organising a non-disambiguation page with little else to qualify it. With that point made, I'm not saying it's useless information, but when considering collective semiotic works, there may be greater potential in incorporating a page of political/philosophical cultural semiotics, or include an appropriate subsections to those pages. I feel the latter would provide greater value. Also, someone who was ACTUALLY seeking this information could seek an article along the lines of "Notable Publications Advocating Political Philosophies".

As mentioned before, Americans will likely edit war even that article through every election. After which, they will look up Meatwad to see what he specializes in.

Thanks for the background, Soman. The disambiguation point in my comment is not meant to negatively assess the intent, and I feel contributors can continue from the exploration of the term as part of a cultural semiotics sub-section to Socialism 173.242.89.38 (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always contributing[reply]

Comment: This article (and the deletion discussion!) got a substantial mention on the May 1, 2012, edition of The Rachel Maddow Show. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, any link? --Soman (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Have one, [48] --Kumpayada (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the arguments against this page either center around "It's BS" or swipes at the right (and a strange, unsupported accusation of racism). The fact that the article is inconvenient for one side or the other doesn't change its validity. Is this any less valid than having an article on Macaca? Izuko (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the explanation above "The conclusion is that the term, or better said the name, has a specific place in early modern socialist discourse", I have not checked but have you created articles for Arbeiter, Genosse, or frei? I ask because it seems this article is simply focused around the idea that some words, actually that one word, had a political meaning at one point. Interesting, to be sure. However, many words take on political meanings, does this fact merit an individual article? While I invite that for consideration, I'm not voting either way, I just came to know about the article. I would say from the little I read, I would not encourage a blanket delete. The information seems at cursory glance to be properly sourced. It may need another home, but it does not seem to be simply conjured for some unknown purpose.

As to a link to the link above of show that brought me here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256402) the relevant portion should begin around 1 minute into that ending segment clip. She was jabbing at a political pundit using it as his sole source that the term "Forward" being used in an ad then means Obama is a socialist. She also poked fun, it seems, at the 'don't delete this' fervor that has come of it. As this interesting piece of historical trivia now rests, in the minds of some, as proof that a politician has anti-American motivations. 68.229.93.129 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.229.93.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Off Topic: Would someone explain to me where striking comments that are NOT your own is an acceptable practice? This appears to be tendentiously disruptive, but I'm willing to Assume Good Faith; however, if comment counts as vandalism, it should be treated as such. Striking out another person's comment on the whole of it would appear to delegitimize their point, valid or otherwise, and the actual interpretation is meant to be that of voluntary retraction or change, thus making the strike out vandalism, and at least two users at risk of uw-warn. 173.242.89.38 (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always annoyed[reply]
- Comment, because it is prone to vote-stacking and socking. Several of the different anon comments in this AfD are seemingly made by the same users. It is also always suspicious with users with no previous edits prior to an AfD, they are usually sock-puppets. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, register an account. It helps a lot to maintain a dialogue. --Soman (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Who makes that decision? You? It seems like proponents for keeping the article are the ones have their comments struck out and then you justify it by further denigrating them. I have unstruck my vote as it is completely valid. If you wish to denigrate me further, I will elevate the issue. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. NOT A BALLOT! That is not a legitimate point or logic. Furthermore, having followed up on previous claims regrading these points: I find no geographical or commercial proximity of the IPs compared and BabyDoc23 may have simply signed a name which that person might use elsewhere. Assume Good Faith seems hard for you if you can't back any of your claims justifying these activities. You either show actual evidence to the claims of an organised edit war, intent to deceive or an explanation that is aware of the phrase NOT A BALLOT, show an acceptable logic to claim vandalism OR identify the WikiPolicy that allows you to strike other people's comments in this context, or there may be a more aggressive review. 173.242.89.38 (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, seriously considering[reply]
    - Comment. I was surprised by this practice as well, it is extremely uncivil behavior and I'm glad someone else notice this and took the necessary actions to revert those edits. I did strike two of my own comments because I was changing my position, so I'll be restoring that myself. No hard feelings, I can perfectly understand reverting all the strike-thrus. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has existed for over a year, has decent number of cites for its length and is notable based on the common thread of being used by a number of different national communist/socialist parties. Agree that connections to Obama campaign are political opinion and original thought and should be removed, but that does not make the rest of the article worthy of deletion. --McDoob AU 93 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will repost my comments. Please note that just because SkepticAnonymous chose to strike it out does not make it invalid, actually it makes it more valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I struck NOTHING out, that was done by other editors. However, as you are a WP:SPA vandal and/or sockpuppet... SkepticAnonymous (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close - What a mess. I can tell you right now that the AFD for this article has already made its round on some of the talk show circuits out here. It's practically wallowing in its own infamy. We can't reasonably try to reach a consensus for deletion under these circumstances. Give the controversy a week or so to die down and then we'll take a look at it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entry for "Forward" is a proper reference to historical fact. The attempt to have it deleted is the blatant political act, the act of covering up and re-writing history and suppression of historical fact. Wikipedia is suppose to be a source of fact that is not effected by personal or ideological motives. The removal of entries is just as bad if not worse then the editing of entries. The attempts to strike AfD comments and the personal attacks of others in the AfD comments of others further prove the blatant political act that the request to delete is. The original entry has been archived and if it is deleted or edited those changes will be exposed. It is this sort of editing of facts which is giving Wikipedia a reputation for not being a credible source or reference. ```` CParisho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.206.28 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.102.206.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The posting of the magazine already exists as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forward, therefore this reposting of it is an attempt to be misleading and purposely so. But something that everyone seems to ignore and it pointed out in the site itself is the first usage of the word Forwert! " First appearing in Paris in January 1844 as a German-language semiweekly, it was founded by Jewish opera composer Giacomo Meyerbeer as a musical and theatrical review." And Please note this is what it was used for before it began being used by Heinrich Heine, Moses Hess, Georg Weber, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and was summarially shut down the year after, all these things are being left out in the article, but they are all there in the "source material" The concept of calling it a generic name for socialist publications is suddenly being ascribed to something that was used to review musicals and theatre... So therefore Readers Digest, American Art Review, and Rolling stones are equally likely to be socialist publications. The name is misleading and politically motivated to give a false account of what it really is. On further viewing of "Forvert" they site their history as "Launched as a Yiddish-language daily newspaper on April 22, 1897, the Forward entered the din of New York's immigrant press as a defender of trade unionism and moderate, democratic socialism." Furthermore finishing it with the note"FORWARD" is the new slogan of Barack Obama's re-election campaign for President of the United States." makes it blatantly obvious that this is being pushed forward under a false premise. Anyone considering keeping it would have to allow for the removal of (generic name for socialist publications) cause that's just not true or relevant. Read more: http://forward.com/about/#ixzz1tj4vP558 Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/10461/forverts/#ixzz1tiySq2v4 Jarunasax (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an irrelevant redirect to Forward#Publications. Closing admin - keep voters have been cavassed - [49], amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point out which !votes are results of canvassing, and if so, why they should not be counted.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, as this is not a vote. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Herp Derp (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utter and arrant nonsense with a blatant political agenda. Is "Forward" socialist when it is used as the state motto of Wisconsin, whose governor is Scott Walker?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps the motivations behind the creation were less than pure, but "Forward" does indeed exist as a commonly-used term/name in socialist and nationalist movements. There should be no mention of Obama 2012 here, though. That is a fringe criticism of non-notable far-right sources. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is arbitrary, for example "Moving Forward" being a word to note people moving from a bad situation, is also the name of a band, the name of a business and the title of Zeigeist:Moving Forward. Forward is an arbitrary that is being used not only as a campaign slogan but to mount political attack and trying to link them to wikipedia in the same way that Santorum was made to suffer in google search engines or how John Kerry got associated with Flip flopping is the realms of politics not Wikipedia. Forward is also the direction we go when we driveJarunasax (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address a thing about what I said, which was noting the historical usage of the term. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AFD only appeared recently, and unfortunately, despite it's merits gives the appearance of being politically motivated. Sometimes the appearance if non-neutrality can be as bad as non-neutrality. Deleting it at this times gives the appearance of non-neutrality for Wikipedia as a whole. The entry for "Forward" is a proper reference to historical fact, and is obviously notable. This will all be forgotten in a few days, but, if it's deleted, it's going to be major news. Jtjathomps (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:SYNTH problem that serves little to no purpose already covered on the Forward disambiguation page. A glance at the "Publications" section alone tells a reader that there have been several socialist publications by the name. Relationships between individual publications should be covered in their respective articles. At a bare minimum, rename to better fit conventions--something like "Forward (socialism)." --BDD (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD. There doesn't appear to be support for "forward" as either a term with special significance to the communist movement or as a generic term for all publications, as the title would suggest; without either of those connections, there's no real significance that isn't already covered by the dab page. Repeated use itself does not establish a special significance; we need sources that discuss a special significance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — "Forward" is not a "generic name of socialist publications" and as such isnt notable. Further, I think its fairly clear this is a blatant political attack. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are you seriously claiming that when I created this article in January 2011, it was done in order to torpeo the Obama-Biden campaign of 2012? That is really a fringe theory. --Soman (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to your comment the posting at the time was insignificant and a stub, and already existed in The Forward magazine. It also ignores the fact that Vorwärts! and Vorwärts are one and the same. There is almost no validity to the stub and if it hadn't been brought up by the news agents it would have stayed irrelevant. But it isn't anymore, therefore it has to be cited, validated and checked. Jarunasax (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps this article and Vorwärts should be merged into Vorwärts!. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well if we look at everything the wiki stub actually strategically uses and combines 3 different references. Vorwärts!, which is the paper that marx wrote for in 1844 , Vorwärts which was the german socalist paper in 1876 and The_Forward was founded in 1896 and still exists to this day as is noted here Forward connections and it's obvious to anyone who reads it.Jarunasax (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Was the article true before the word was adopted by the Obama campaign? Is it still true? Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantumfighter (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Can I borrow your future prediction device that you used to predict that "Forward" would be Obama's campaign slogan? I'd like to use it to predict next week's lotto numbers. Thanks. --B (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entry for "Forward" is a reference to historical fact. Deleting it will only prove the politicos correct, that there is a left wing conspiracy. ChuckEngels (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— ChuckEngels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep It's pretty obvious this desire to delete this article is because of the fact that it is the same as the new Obama campaign slogan, which could be embarrassing. If the article had been whipped up immediately after that new slogan was unveiled, I could see the political motivation being in the opposite direction, and would probably vote delete. But the fact that this has been around for almost a year and a half, and is well-sourced, better sourced even that it was a week ago, makes this an easy !vote. By the same token, there shouldn't be any synthetic attempt to link it to the Obama campaign. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the article is broken... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarunasax (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article was created by Soman on or before Jan 1, 2011. The Obama Campaign announced the slogan on April 30, 2012. Just because they, and SkepticAnonymouse ARE Socialists, does not mean they get to rewrite history. If Wikipedia deletes this entry, it will show that the organization is biased and political. I would hope that they would keep to being a straightforward catalog of facts as they originally founded themselves to be. The fact is, many socialists and groups, including Marx and Engels, used the name Forward. Hey, socialists, you came up with the tag, now wear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.75.11 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:AGF and keep arguments focused on WP's relevant guidelines and policies for inclusion. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that some of these IP users might be happier at another wiki project. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly predates slogan, no reason to delete for recentism reasons... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

(edit conflict) Redirect to Forward. If this is a page about a generic name for multiple socialist publications then it should either be a disambiguation page itself or redirect to one, and right now to me the most appropriate of the two is to redirect it to a "Socialist publications" (or even just "Publications") section at Forward. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIMPLE SOLUTION: Strong keep - if the article was written BEFORE Obama's selection of a slogan. Delete - if written After Obama's selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.124.200 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Originally I was going to say delete, in agreement with Lambiam and Carrite particularly. It's is true we have articles on published works using that name that aren't to do with socialism, e.g. Forward! and Forward Magazine. It's also true the title is terrible and an implausible search term. If we need to disambiguate a title let's do it more in line with naming conventions; BDDs suggestion "Forward (socialism)" is sensible. It's further true it's likely to attract OR, in the form of xyz is a socialist-oriented/related publication therefore they chose the title because of its historical associations with socialism. Maybe so, maybe not; if saying that there needs to be a source such as an online magazine About page explicitly saying it or the founder saying so in an interview, etc. But that is an argument for editing not deletion. On the face of it sources used in the article seem reliable, and the term does seem to have a specific usage derived from the mid-C19th German newspaper mentioned. I think it's reasonable to have a small sourced non-OR article on its influence and usage, separate from from the article on that paper. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Lambiam. Plus the disambiguation phrase is unlike any I've ever seen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete is based on Original Research WP:OR, and a WP:POVFORK of Forward#Publications and totally implausible search term. There has also been blatant Canvassing
Redirect to Forward#Publications. To be fair to the creator of this article, this is a legitimate topic, and I have no reason to believe it was created for bad-faith reasons. But I'm just not convinced there's actually anything to say about it beyond 'these are some publications called Forward', which can be done perfectly well at the main disambiguation page. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if anyone can demonstrate there's really enough source material to write a decent article here; but I suspect that if kept, it will remain perpetually at the stub level it is now, not really adding anything beyond what's at the main disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this article was in existence for a year and can be fixed with appropriate work.Drboisclair (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I would also support Redirect. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to be pressured by political movements in the United States. Let the truth be told.Drboisclair (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

comment this article is completely out of context all you have to do it read the various sources connected to the alternatives and see how it misconstrues the facts, the article needs to be heavily edited or redirected. And here is the full evidence.

1 In citing Vorwärts! the snub ignores the founding of the paper and its original purpose and the reason for Marx joining the paper in the first place, after the closure of Deutsch-Französische_Jahrbücher which eventually lead the closure of Vorwärts by the Prussian King Friedrich_Wilhelm_IV 2 In repurposing of the paper in 1876 Vorwärts Soman ignores that Vorwärts did not become an organ of the Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany till 1891 to 1933 after the actual paper as he claims. He also says the editor was Wilhelm Liebknecht who actually edited Volksstaat which existed in October 2, 1869 to September 23, 1876 which was actually an organ for German_Social_Democratic_Workers_Party_in_the_Czechoslovak_Republic. Another paper that published in that time (1891-1933) was the Volksstimme. It was properganda their were alot of papers. 3 The Russian version Vpered did not publish Lenin. Soman claims "the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks." the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks. when an alternate and conflicting version states It backed the Russian Marxist economists and then, after the split in the Party, the Mensheviks. It published articles by Leon Trotsky, but would not publish any by Vladimir Lenin. 4 He ignores the conflict the paper had with hitler, "The libel proceedings against the Socialist editor were instituted by the reactionary leader of Bavaria following the publication by the Vorwaerts of a report that the Hitler Organization was receiving financial aid from "American Jews and Henry Ford."" 5 one lovely thing that has noting to do with the suit but ignored connections is "During the Nazi period, the Social Democratic Party of Germany was banned, and so the publication of Vorwärts in Germany had to stop in 1933, but it was continued in exile in Czechoslovakia until 1938 and subsequently in Paris until 1940." Jarunasax (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)I believe the reason for making the snub was legitimate, but because of the uproar it's causing, everything about it becomes questionable and the missed connections becomes big holes within something he would have gotten round to eventuallyJarunasax (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. Regarding (1), there is no claim that the article would cover all aspects of the publications mentioned. Regarding your (2), you confuse DSAP (the party in Czechoslovakia, founded in 1919) and SAPD (which later took the name SPD). Vorwärts emerged as the central publication of the German Social Democrats, but was by no means the sole party newspaper. The info Jarunasax cites from the en.wiki article of Vorwärts appears incorrect, the de.wiki article has more detail of Vorwärts was the central party organ from 1876 onwards. Not sure what this has to do with the AfD. (3) Vpered was not a Russian edition of the German Vorwärts. There is no claim of that in the article either. There is even a mention of how the name 'Forward' fell out of fashion in Soviet Russia, a development that happened in response to the First World War. Regarding (4) and (5), again, not sure what you want to state. By World War I, the name (which is the subject of the article) was already an international feature. --Soman (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment in response Der Volksstaat was the actual name of the paper that was edited by Wilhelm Liebknecht, not Vorwärts. Two different names. Lenin started the Iskra not Vpered. Vpered was just a russian translation of Forward or Vorwärts. I'm reassessing my concept of having the snub deleted, coming to terms that your research though is missing contextual connections that allowed it to be sabotaged and set for deletion. Infact I've come to a simple conclusion that the snub can be saved with revisions contextual ones.

And no I don't have any edits outside of these 2, It doesn't make me a bot or a troll, these were things that interested me, and I have no intention of editing your post for you. nor am I being rude or abusive of abusing the wiki policies, I'm just pointing out to you that your snub needs work to make it salvagable.Jarunasax (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. I'm sorry, but you are both about Vorwärts and Vpered. There is plenty material on both these publications, at google books for reading. Regarding your edit count, the fact that your second edit ([50]) could be considered as a defensive move caught my attention. --Soman (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment My sig that was basically a play on word for "I think there fore I am" sounds defensive to you? That's an impressive stretch, but completely off the mark. It would play out in a longer sense, I think, I am, I exist. Oh well "shrug" I'm sure the editors have considered the same thing you have and have seen no reason to censure me. Still does not change that your connection of the word is a stretch at best. Again I'll point out that your missing research is what allowed your probably good research to be scrutinised in a way that it wouldn't have been normally Jarunasax (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article predates the current nonsense regarding Obama's reelection slogan and, if not for that slogan, would have continued to be a non-controversial article. The first reference in the article - [51] - is an external source (again, predating Obama's slogan) that addresses the topic of "Forward" as a publication, so this article isn't any kind of original research or novel synthesis of unrelated topics. There is no policy reason to delete this article - only a political one. --B (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no mention of Obama in this posting and therefore the request for deletion is itself politically motivated. You cannot delete history simply because it is not politically convenient. 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeReasonableNReal (talk • contribs)

— BeReasonableNReal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep it.....If you delete in light of obummers planned use of the work, there will be no use for your service or website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.171.104 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting from no vote to keep - My reasoning is that if there is a choice between abandoning this knowledge or keeping it (i.e. if moving it is for some reason not an option), then I feel it is more relevant to have it. Thus, I'm going to make a case. With regards to claims of synthesis, the sources directly state this relation, it is not an editor point of view. The sources state flat out that "vorwärts" as well as some other phrases held a specific meaning during a certain period of time. If the sources are not suspect, the statements are well sourced. Whether there is too fine a point on it, if it's taking a small historical fact out of context within a greater narrative, that's something else. Some people are arguing that and that discussion may be fruitful in some ways, some arguments made about 'holes' in the coverage make sense to me. However, I disagree with the synth argument for the same reason I disagree with the 'attack piece' argument. If it's being used as an attack, it's because others are taking a small piece of information as proof of something well out of the scope of its intent. It's not because the contents of the article (vandalism aside) are not true. The only thing I am curious about is why the name isn't "Vorwärts (generic name of socialist publications)", as that seems to be the original name from which other publications (Avante!, Új Előre) seem to draw. A small point, but something for consideration in case there isn't an obvious reason I missed! 68.229.93.129 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominators rationale is flawed on all points. It is not "Patent Nonsense", it is very understandable prose. Patent nonsense refers to "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". This is coherent text, not gibberish and has referenced history. While it may, of late, be the target of some partisan editing, it is not being used as a "blatant political attack". The article existed long before the Obama campaign announced (I would speculate even came up with) their new campaign slogan. The article may have been edited by a compromised account recently, but we are not being "gamed" by one. The article was created by a respectable editor and other respectable editors have contributed to it. Only recently have questionable edits joined the fray. There are many more sources than the two mentioned and many more appear available. Did the nominator follow WP:BEFORE? WTucker (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shift to Keep since the original connection to this was by connecting it with the Obama slogan and citing is a a socialist ideal, it made the topic and its vague connections tenuous at best. With the current new inclusions Forward and revisions Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) then the connection has become insignificant, The snub needs more research and connections, but that does not call for a grounds for deletion anymoreJarunasax (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Setting aside its disreputable origin, this article in its cleaned up version appears to be WP:SYN. There is a high bar here before writing articles where the subject is an exposition on words and language, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on things, not an essay on etymology. We have rules discouraging dictionary definitions, articles about neologisms, euphemisms, and so on. Only rarely does a turn of phrase cross the line where it is actually a distinct subject. Thus we don't have articles about The Bee's Knees, half dozen, Involuntary termination), and so on. If naming socialist magazines "forward" is a cultural trend, so what? There's another cultural tendency to name news magazines the "gazette" or "inquirer" or "post", one to use archaic spellings and words to name semi-upscale housing projects (steppes, fronte), and one to name mass market passenger vehicles after cosmic phenomena or wild animals. Observations on those tendencies are essay-like, and are not treatments of specific subject matter appropriate to an encyclopedia. Anyway, there are no sources that tie this all together as a subject on its own. So far all the sources just address the distinct examples, and the article makes a somewhat arbitrary grouping / list of them all. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It really isn't a synthesis. If the article was original in its observation that "Forward" is a common name for leftist periodicals, then you would be correct. But that is not a novel interpretation. This 1998 book talks about it (long before current events made it an issue). In light of the Obama's campaign choosing it as a slogan, numerous publications, such as this US News piece have pointed out the connection. The point of WP:SYN is that Wikipedia articles should not pull together pieces of information and form a novel conclusion that nobody else has formed. But that's not what this article does - very clearly other people outside of Wikipedia have come to the conclusion that "Forward" is often used as a name for left-wing publications. --B (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first source you mention is in the context of analyzing the political attack on Obama for using the term, not that bona fide uses of the term as communist slogan is a subject in itself. The second is a footnote on page 246 of a book on communism in Syria and Lebanon, again, hardly indicative that this is a subject distinct from others. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is factual and therefore the "patent nonsense" cause for deletion is invalid. There appear to be sources and at least one specimen image supporting the assertions. The claim that that the article was created to make Obama look bad because FORWARD was made his 2012 campaign slogan in mid-2012 seems unsupported by actual fact: The article was created in early 2011! Rather, it seems that nominating to delete is being done to hide something which now (at least to right-wingers and those opposed to social progress) reflects poorly on the President. The nomination for deletion does not pass the POV smell-test. I'm a known Obama supporter, but I can't stomach deleting referenced content for political reasons. Once we open that door, of course the Rush Limbaugh zombies out there will have a field day doing it right back to us. What should change though is the title's foolish add-on. I mean "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)"? WTF? That is POV too. Change it to Forward (slogan) or Forward (political publications) or some such and keep the article. Put protection on it in such a way that Dittoheads can't make the title blatantly political again. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Useless POV fork of a perfectly good disambig. Fails WP:GNG on its own: a single footnote from a 280 page book, and a laundry list of examples not referring to the concept? Really? JFHJr (㊟) 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there even a single "keep" editor that isn't one of those sockpuppets created for the sole purpose of rigging AfDs? Or else doing things like this? The overwhelming consensus once the sockpuppets and Boortz meatpuppets are removed is DELETE.

Comment - um. well, I'M no sockpuppet. thank you. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're ONE. Meanwhile, right behind you in the history... Someone out there is really good at making brand new throwaway accounts, and they're obviously organized enough to actually make accounts rather than simply making IP edits. Off-wiki canvassing of meatpuppets, sockpuppets, makes no difference, the consensus absent the socks is clearly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - If we DO keep this one, can we write a "Tribune (generic name of capitalist publications)" article too? How about a "Times (generic name of jingoistic publications)" article? Those are just as "valid" in an absurd way as this joke of an article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Bad-faith sneaky political tactic by tea party yahoos, complete with off-wiki canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article existed for over a year. Anyone thinking that this article was used as an attack against a politician probably should read the citations. Quoted from "Not one man! Not one penny! German social democracy, 1863-1914"..."For example, [language] was an important factor in distinguishing the supporters of German social democracy from other germans. Four particular words - vorwärts, Arbeiter, Genosse, and frei - took on distinctive connotations that made them special if not exclusive property of the social democratic movement in the years before the First World War".

Keep in mind, this snippet of knowledge makes no claim as to 'forward' proving President Barack Obama is a socialist, nor does it seem to use socialist as a prejorative, nor does it make reference to forward as it is understood in modern times. Only during a certain time in history. Regardless of how foolish it is to use it as an attack against the president, that does not have anything to do with the merits of this article. To say it is an unnecessary redirect or for similar reasons is one thing, but to discount it as a 'tea party yahoo' tactic is not thinking critically. It is a small fact being used to fabricate against someone, no different than any other political cheap shot. It does not mean the small fact isn't true, only that it is not at all related in the way they'd like you to think it is. 68.229.93.129 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countercomment This article's existence is a joke. Should we start writing up similar articles for other common newspaper words? I'm thinking Times (generic name of jingoistic publications), Tribune (generic name of capitalist publications), Sun (generic name of Canadian publications)... they're just as valid and just as absurd as this "article" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have several sources, as this article does, stating that 'Times', 'Tribune', and 'Sun' were used in the 1850 to 1910 period as specifically having a connotation affiliating them with jingoistic, capitalist, and Canadian publications (or singing clubs) then yes, they would be valid, and not absurd. I would also like to know, do you still feel this article is created in bad faith by political opponents of the President of the United States? That was the whole of your original argument for deletion. 68.229.93.129 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My" original argument for deletion? Maybe you're new here (actually, looking at your edit list, you're just a sockpuppet from the Neal Boortz crowd, but what the hell I can humor the uneducated dolt squad for a moment). The circumstances of the original writeup for deletion are immaterial to me. I can see that at the time, you and your fellow vandals were rampantly inserting all sorts of garbage about the Obama campaign - hell, you actually created your very own POV fork as well to continue that kind of slander. Even without that, however, the article is LAUGHABLE. It's the worst kind of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH garbage crafted from one-off sentences here and there in papers unrelated to the premise of the article itself. It's the metaphorical equivalent of having articles on arithmetic that derive not from scholarly papers and textbooks but from Inchworm (song) or a Speak & Spell (toy), or articles on political theory that derive from the insane rantings of a fat drug addict with a noontime radio show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here by way of the Rachel Maddow show, actually. I didn't create a POV fork, whoever that was, please check the IP, I didn't create any articles. I want you to invite for consideration, for example, your own edit history. Shall we then draw from it that you're a sock puppet for Neal Boortz? But yes, "Your" original argument for deletion. You didn't respond to it yet, you proposed delete and your argument was "Bad-faith sneaky political tactic by tea party yahoos". I responded by stating that this article existed before it was used as an inane attempt to slander President Obama, and I'm asking if you've refactored your position on that. I have a feeling that I cannot convince you I don't have some nefarious goal. However with regards to it being garbage from one off sentences...those sentences are direct published statements which support the article text. That is not synthesis, if the sources are suspect, then something can be said. But this is not fabricated. I came here for a grin myself, but I never assumed it to be a crafted article, I just wanted to see what straws were being grasped at. The only thing that amazes me is how people seem to be going out of their way to prove claims that there is a rabid push to censor 'the truth about Obama'. Notability is something I expected to hear argued, small articles always get tough scrutiny, but your arguments don't seem reasoned. I invite you may be exhibiting some small signs of a battleground mentality.68.229.93.129 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Sequence: state of the article November 2011. Raw stub, not even that, based on ONE "article", and that a throwaway with no references in the "notes" section. In short, worthless and not even WP:RS material. Apparently created SOLELY to place a POV-laden disambiguation template on The Forward rather than linking to the real disambiguation page.

Now on to the very next edit: the vandalism begins. And then someone resurrects a submarine sockpuppet to hide their IP. Followed by attempted PROD, followed by Nintendude64's showing up and insisting it had to be in AfD because it would be "controversial", followed by more sockpuppetry at which point we can note that User:Nintendude pulled sockpuppetry in AfD's before too and was banned for it. At the time of removal of Spazato's edit, that literally removed half the content of the article, barely qualifying as a stub.

And as for the rest, I've responded to you below with specifics. It's up to you to actually discuss. What incident put a spotlight on this article and got eyes on it is immaterial to the discussion; the fact that it is poorly written, unencyclopedic WP:OR/WP:SYNTH garbage that needs deletion is incontrovertible. We can protect vandalism-target articles, but there is no sense in protecting vandalism-target WP:POVFORK stubs that don't have an ounce of encyclopedic material and that were designed for template abuse anyways.

Strong Keep. Nobody would have even thought of suggesting this be deleted if it weren't for the Washington Times piece and subsequent brouhaha. People using existing Wikipedia content in ways you don't like isn't a valid criterion for deleting that content. Bad edits/vandalism may be a reason to consider semiprotection or such but aren't a valid reason to delete an article. Half of those arguing for delete seem, like Dominus Vobisdu, to conveniently ignore the fact that the article has been around for a year and a half and could not have been written in response to Obama's new slogan; the rest of them have very shaky arguments ("patent nonsense"? SYN? come on, don't be ridiculous). In reference to Cramyourspam's comment: I think the parenthetical part of the title isn't POV but just a very awkward way of trying to specify what the article's about. It's far enough from typical Wikipedia article title conventions to be a distraction and a problem; some kind of rename really would be helpful. (political publication) doesn't seem to me to quite hit the nail on the head but it's a solid improvement on what we have. BDD suggested (socialism) above.Prodicus (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Individual publications may very well be notable, but there is clearly no case for the notability of the general concept of socialist publications named forward outside of absurd POV pushing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This pretty much started out as a right wing smear attack on President Obama's re-election campaign. The only interesting part about it is that on the one hand the right wingers associate the word with Communists/Socialists but on the other hand associate it with Nazism. Per Taksar, this pretty much seems like blatant POV pushing and attack piece, not an encyclopedia article. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP All of the statements in the article appear to be true. It is up to the individual readers to determine whether there is/is not a relationship between the individual segments of the article. In many languages, a given word can/will have different meanings. In a dictionary or encyclopedia, all of those meanings are defined and there are no relational values established between the different meanings. Just because the Obama/Biden campaign adopted the word "forward" as their campaign slogan, does/does not necessarily mean they have socialist leanings. The article is true and was written long before the word was adopted by their political campaign. If you like, remove the reference to the Obama campaign but leave the rest intact. Just FYI, if Wiki starts editing/deleting articles just to keep politicians happy, I will make no further financial donations to Wiki. M.T.V, OKC, OK> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.167.240 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.225.167.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First of all, I doubt you've ever donated to Wikipedia in your life, so that little WP:THREAT of yours is irrelevant. Second of all, the existence for a year of a meaningless stub of an article - the motivations for creation of which are dubious at best - for "a year" doesn't mean it isn't a bad article in need of deletion, it just means it didn't get noticed because, at least from the article history, nobody cared enough to edit it, not even the creator. Third of all, there's an incredible amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH going on in the "sourcing" of the article even now, which makes the whole thing illegitimate. The circumstances of the article getting noticed are immaterial, what matters is that it's a badly written pile of WP:SYNTH that inarguably qualifies for deletion.

That is an argument that can be taken seriously, but you didn't offer your evidence for consideration. What do you claim to be original research or synthesis? With that in discussion there's something to consider beyond accusations and political drama. The most compelling arguments before that have been more in the weeds, the nature of it as a redirect, etc. I'm really not experienced enough to judge on that. If this articles sourcing, claims or conclusions are in question, however, I think it would really advance the discussion. 68.229.93.129 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. Actually, I have (donated). Several times. Wont anymore, do as you like. You remind me of a college professor that has four PHD's, but has to get his 10 year old kid to tie his shoes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.167.240 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you should read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you don't understand them there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Second of all, specific points:

1 - The article was fraudulently used as a "disambiguation" page template on only one other page: The Forward, until corrected yesterday here: [52]. Despite "listing" several publications, none of their Wikipedia pages appear to have ever had that same disambiguation template to refer back to this article. That speaks to a desire to place a POV-laden template on the page more than a desire to create a real article. This can be seen as a form of sneaky vandalism, attempting to hide NPOV-violating material within the context of a "procedural" edit.

2 - As stated by others in discussions here and at the article talk page, WP:SYNTH applies to the article's basic premise. One mention in a few-hundred-page book does not a proper scholarly reference make, particularly when the sentence is more or less a throwaway reference. Included in the list of "socialist publications" on this article at times has been a magazine whose primary purpose was as a review of stage and theater shows. The entire premise of the article rests on a single throwaway line in the "notes" section of this, a completely worthless linkage that would get laughed out of any proper WP:RS discussion - and even that "notes" section can't decide whether it is talking about "social democrats" or "communists" or "socialists."

2.5 - Some of the "sources" right now are clear jokes - a book on computers, "Microform Review"? A book on the relation of sports games and identity? And "conveniently", the pages they claim to reference are never available for a quick check. I submit that this is actually worse than WP:SYNTH, this is clear and obvious reference-padding designed to fool gullible people who won't bother to check the sources.

3 - When the proper disambiguation page reference Forward#Publications was filled out, the focus of the vandalism behavior shifted, with people from the Neal Boortz vandalism squad creating brand new accounts (presumably to hide their IP addresses as they were catching on to how quickly IP vandalism is detected and removed) trying to constantly re-edit that page. Eventually it was locked down for semiprotection, but the record shows it took a while to clean up the damage since one of them managed to slip in a changed reference to "Socialist Publications" instead of just "Publications."

Do you start to get the picture now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.233.155 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to 1, i'm not going to get into the weeds about the exacts of a disambiguation page, as I said in my orginal argument if it has to be moved, let it be moved, my concern is the sourced nature of the claims. Which brings me to 2, you claim microform review, why not look to the other source that you can read directly? This is a source for the same statement. As to what you presume is a book on sports games, let me invite this piece of the book summary: "This book presents the first critically edited collection of Henning Eichberg's seven provocative essays into "body culture". Eichberg, a well-known scholar in continental Europe who draws upon the ideas of Elias, Focault, Habermas and others, is now attracting considerable interest from sociologists, historians and geographers." With regards to social democrats and your perceived confusion, it made sense to me upon reading. Now, if you are saying that people have come to this page via pundit urgings or statements and caused trouble, I can concur with that. That, however, is not a good reason to delete, the wikipedia process is good at restoring stability, there's no need to be cowed by troublemakers. Also, using four tilde's allows you to sign your name, so that you know! 68.229.93.129 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the tilde's - I know. I choose not to. Haven't signed since 2005, not going to start now, not going to give in to the "everybody must be registered" crowd either, fuck 'em.

As to Eichberg's book - READ some of it. It is a book about the impact of sporting teams (soccer, hockey, etc) and leagues on culture. The page they claim to quote from is unavailable by google review, and the pages that ARE visible have nothing to do with socialism, communism, or anything else of the sort.

The book you linked makes a far better justification for an article such as Common Nomenclature of Socialist Publications and Organizations than anything so specific as the current article. Again, WP:SYNTH in action - you're cherry picking in order to reach the conclusion of justifying the article, and cherry picking poorly at that.

Comment Articles in not patent nonsense, hence does not fall under WP:CSD#G1 71.175.53.239 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was created well over a year before this so called "political attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.150 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Keep. "How many fingers am I holding up?""I'm not sure...""That's better." George Orwell, 1984. The movie is available on Netflix. BW. Norman, Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.208.120 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename with a more generic (politics) - It clearly is not nonsense nor is it a political attack as the original posting claims. The outrage that people are feeling is due to narrow-minded recentism. The whole idea of 'socialist' being an attack or an insult is due to recentism as well. It might be good for this to be merged with Forward, so that you don't have a disambiguation page going to another disambiguation page, but then there'd be nowhere to put that two paragraphs worth (probably should be expanded on) of information regarding the historic usage of the word. It'd probably be better to rename it to "Forward (politics)" which is more generic than "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)". Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I also agree that the title name is rather unwieldy. Renaming the article to something like Forward (politics) may be more appropriate and intuitive. With a more generic article name, the scope doesn't need to be as narrow either if editors choose to expand. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DNFTT

Why not make it even more generic a name? I suggested Common Nomenclature of Socialist Publications and Organizations above. The article is still so full of WP:SYNTH and Cherry picking (fallacy) that it's worthless anyways but if you're renaming it, at least choose something that is useful and fits the sources you're cherry picking from.

Note to closing admin: User above has been blocked for block/ban evasion at the time of this comment.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. Despite this user being a block evader, I'll still answer their comment. There is no evidence of WP:SYNTH here. If you actually read the first citation, it clearly validates the purpose of this article. The article author has not grabbed two sources which say two different things to draw their own conclusion. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we are to believe that Nintendude, previously banned for AfD sockpuppetry, is clean here while his friends and two of wikipedia's most abusive admins block his opponents with no proof? Yeah, that TOTALLY passes the smell test... not. Between that and the obvious, proven off-wiki canvassing this whole mess is beyond redemption. Nintendude, Deltaquad, Fluffernutter = all guilty of AfD socking and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.7.93.101 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment. Yeah, says the IP user. Can't log into your account because it's blocked? Take some time off. Jeez... --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never can log in if you never make one. Boo hoo cries the previously banned sockpuppetteer... can't handle an honest discussion? But I guess you never could in the first place, that was what got you banned last time. Politics makes strange bedfellows and allows admins to overlook sockpuppetry in the name of their agendas apparently... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.135.73 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is over a year old, then how is this political shananigans? Don't let politics in here, if the president choose a slogan that happens to mesh with something from the past, that should not affect whether or not this article is on here. If there is verifiably false data, that should be adjusted or removed, but to throw out the whole thing flies in the face of the purpose of this site. Peterwesson (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was accurate before the Obama campaign adopted it then it is still accurate. Keep it and lock it down to prevent politicising it. Deleting it would actually BE a political act by Wikipedia; freezing it would not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaJoe1950 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— GaJoe1950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Obvious keep. The article has existed for over a year, and its creation cannot be attributed to an event that had not yet happened. #1: The article does not remotely meet G1. #2/3: That articles are being used for attacks is not a reason to delete them, that's a reason to protect them and/or hand out blocks. #4/5: As far as sources go, the article is pretty well-sourced. The nominator was clearly throwing out a bunch of reasons to see if any stick. Well, none of them have stuck. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Meets notability and verifiability. I agree with Chris: users, not an article, should be punished for bad behavior. And depending on how it's presented, I'm not even sure that a well-sourced mention of Obama's new slogan is bad behavior. The controversy has clearly become notable in itself. SpectraValor (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Neither is this article nonsense nor are spurious personal attacks a reason to delete an article that has been in existence for more than a year. Chris has said it all. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 2

Fix, protect and rename: to something on the lines of Forward (socialism) or Forward (publication). The article is being misused at present, so it needs to be protected from the canvassed right-wing "Obama is a socialist" claptrap and fixed so said claptrap isn't in the article p b p 19:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice none of the things I enboldened are keep or delete, so my opinion, due to what Prioryman notes, is now weak delete. p b p 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article reminds me very much of one that featured in a previous deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, and I highly recommend that the closure statement in that AfD should be read by participants in this one. The fundamental problem is that the article is a WP:SYNTH. There is little or no connection between the disparate publications of the same or similar name other than similar ideological outlooks. As far as I can see, there don't seem to be any publications that cover the issue of "Forwards" as a "generic name of socialist publications". It is an artificial, invented topic cobbled together from a mass of disparate sources. Individual publications such as Vorwärts! are notable and are already covered in their own articles, but the general concept does not seem to be notable nor the subject of specific coverage. The artificiality of the topic can be illustrated by the concept of an article called Times (generic name of conservative publications) linking the Times of London with various other conservative-aligned newspapers of the same or similar names. Nobody would accept that as a legitimate topic, nor should we accept this. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Nothing to do with current politics. I just don't see that this article covers anything beyond what is already listed under the "publications" heading on the "Forward" disambiguation page.TCSaint (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have the dab Forward. There's no use writing about this topic "generically". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Per an excerpt from the book: Ismael, Tareq Y., and Ismael, Jacqueline S. The Communist Movement in Syria and Lebanon. Gainesville [u.a.]: University Press of Florida, 1998. p. 246,

“

lla al-Amam means forward, and the word has significance in communist jargon. The word "forward" was commonly used by the socialists, communists and other radical leftists as a title for their numerous journals and publications. Lenin himself, after his resignation from the editorial board of the organ of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party Iskra (The Spark), caused by his quarrel with the Mensheviks and Plechanov, published a new weekly, Vperyod ("Forward" in Russian) during the period of 4 January to 18 May 1905.

”

There's more to read here, but the topic has received ~~significant~~ coverage beyond a passing mention in this reliable tertiary source. As such, specific coverage about this specific topic has been published. The information in this source contradicts the delete votes in this discussion that are based upon statements of the article/topic supposedly being "patent nonsense", "original research", and others. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A footnote in a 280 page work constitutes substantial coverage of the topic? Even if this were possible, there are no multiple sources substantially treating the topic. JFHJr (㊟) 03:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to comment – Here's another source. This one is comprised of significant coverage: Morton, Victor (April 30, 2012). "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". 'Washington Times. Retrieved May 2, 2012.. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline per:

Morton, Victor (April 30, 2012). "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". 'Washington Times. Retrieved May 2, 2012.
Galupo, Scott (May 2, 2012). "What Barack Obama's 'Forward' Slogan Really Means". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 2, 2012. (A valid WP:NEWSBLOG source)
Ismael, Tareq Y., and Ismael, Jacqueline S. The Communist Movement in Syria and Lebanon. Gainesville [u.a.]: University Press of Florida, 1998. p. 246

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much connecting the dots in those, and some of them appear to be op-eds in partisan publications p b p 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No self-respecting journalist or analyst worth their weight in salt is going to dare make the connection between a campaign slogan and a socialist tenet.--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced !vote: The following text was found at WP:DRV and has been moved here by JJB 21:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC), who cites WP:TLDR and has no opinion on the matter:

Regarding the article on your website regarding "Forward (generic name of socialist publications," I resent that you delete and article because it makes the president, whom you are biased about, look bad. He is the one who chose "forward" as his campaign slogan, not you. It's his responsibility to chose whether a slogan is bad for him, NOT YOU. In your business, you cannot afford to be biased or endorse a candidate. Taking down the truth to make obama or anyone else look better in a factural truth is biased and you are guilty of it. The communist Marxist Nazi's did use this, and obama chose this because of his agenda. it is NOT your job to cover for him, or his regime, and it is not your job to knock down truths and get them out of the way for his benefit. What kind of factual site are you? One that eliminates the truth and takes it off the site to cover for anyone who threatens and bribes is outrageous. You are no longer a reputable site, and I for one, will not go to this site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.249.31 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. This is the English language version of WP. I'm sorry, but much of the English-speaking world could care less about US politics - except of course in so far as, well you know, all that stuff about.... Clearly the term "forward" has a particular historical use and the article in question should not be deleted. Mfhiller (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTHy POV-fork of disambiguation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]