Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 11 April 13 April >

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. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Toast Studios

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

Couldn't find any sources that claimed notability. Fails WP:NCORP MaskedHero (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. This is purely housekeeping, as the page was speedily deleted as a negative, unsourced BLP. TheBlueCanoe 03:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manolo Latorre Castillo

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

Severely negative, poorly-written BLP accusing its subject of multiple criminal offenses without anything close to enough reliable sourcing. There may very well be a GNG-passing article under this, but in its current state and in light of the potentially defamatory allegations it contains, I propose that we WP:NUKEANDPAVE this one; any salvageable content can be merged into Grup d'Acció Valencianista. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Besides the fact that this is an open goal asking for WP:BLP violations, the subject of the article is not notable. GAV is much too small these days for their leaders to attract the type of coverage necessary to meet either WP:GNG or WP:BLP and I don't see any content that could be usefully combined into the GAV article. Valenciano (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about reliable English sources. The sources don't have to be in English. Spanish and Valencian/Catalan would be fine. However I've already looked there and there are only occasional mentions in passingsuch as this one. Valenciano (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk

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

This person is not notable, per WP:BIO Jirt (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Given the number of prior unsuccessful deletion attempts, more is needed than a mere assertion that is put forth by the editor proposing this AfD (for some reason only one prior AfD is linked on the talk page). The nominator has not provided any new reasons for deleting the article. In the meantime, the article has had additional sources added. While a number of the references might be the subject herself, there are still several independent reliable sources cited. In fact, since this was re-nominated, another editor found numerous additional sources. All applicable notability guidelines have had the necessary thresholds met. Agent 86 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, the same reasons I gave in the second AfD go for this one, too.Agent 86 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, significant discussion among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I think I have sufficiently "rescued" what was a poorly sourced article about a subject who I believe meets the criteria outlined in WP:NOTE. I've added multiple secondary sources from major newspapers. She's authored three books, been a syndicated columnist, and has a career blog that is not infrequently mentioned in reliable sources. The article was not good before, but that doesn't mean she doesn't meet the notability criteria. And I think I've addressed the primary source problem and added sufficient context to make it a decent article. I don't see how this article could warrant deletion at this point when there was no consensus the previous two times. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian community

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

Zero secondary sources; not notable; article started by the author of the primary source (COI); the other cited sources do not refer to this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are a few different kinds of Bayesian community out there. There is the community of folks practicing Bayesian statistics, served for instance by the International Society for Bayesian Analysis. There is the Bayesian Community Detection problem in network analysis. And then there is the neologism coined by J. Schrager for the kinds of cognitive interactions seen in scientific networks and in particular as a synonym for multistage inference in his CACHE program (see section 6.3 and note 2 in his paper). The article is about the Shrager neologism. As far as I can tell from Google Scholar, there is a primary reference and 2-3 citations of that paper in other publications. There are no secondary or independent sources that I can find. The topic thus falls below threshold for general notability per WP:GNG. Lack of notability suggests that this article be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Optare#Buses. There is no requirement that sources be online or be included in the article, but they must be presented in the discussion to be considered. If it's an offline source, then present it and give a short exerpt of the section purported to support notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optare ColumboRider

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

Very unlikely to expand due to lack of sources/references on web. Possibly redirect/merge with Optare StarRider? Tom the Tomato (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there were policy-based arguments on both sides that dealt with whether the subject of all her goals is notable enough for a stand-alone list, much of this discussion has devolved into whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid comparison or not, which is only tangentially relevant to the discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach

edit
List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If they want to look at the list of int. goals scored, they can look under this article. Plus this page violates WP:NOTSTATS. – Michael (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Christine Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be true for you, to a journalist, historian, or someone else interested in women athletes, the Olympics, and the history of football, the article is not WP:CRUFT. See Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles_about_fictional_works, specifically: "The term "fancruft" is most commonly applied to fictional subjects." Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but please read the first sentence of that essay before quoting an irrelevant part of it. Funny Pika! 23:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's an essay. It's fascinating, but it has no bearing on anything here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but a little torn on this). Many prominent male international footballers have a list of their international goals within their article e.g. Lionel Messi, David Beckham, Pelé etc, so clearly the community believe that listing international goals is noteworthy. It so happens that Wambach has so many goals that she should be afforded the right to a standalone list of her goals (since adding the list to her main article would violate WP:SIZE). Seems reasonable. Although some of the info in the list seems a little too statty. Having said that, there should be no reason why the list of goals shouldn't be allowed to exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say anything about not having a list of goals within an article? Messi, Beckham and Pele have nothing to do with this discussion. – Michael (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the flaws of pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it isn't always valid. For starters, those three highlighted articles are 2-3 times larger than the suggested article size given in WP:SIZE. If I were to try to condense it, I'd start by pruning bloated statistics like individual goals scored. Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe anyone on this list has their own international goals scored page - so by that same logic clearly the community believe that listing international goals on a separate page is not that noteworthy. Just because it exists in an article doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough to be on a stand alone page, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Lastly, the omission of detailed statistics such as goals scored doesn't detract from the summaries already provided on their respective main articles (Abby Wambach#International goals and Christine Sinclair#International). Milestone goals are mentioned and those scored during major tournaments are also included below that. Funny Pika! 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a case that the community have clearly agreed that international goals are notable enough for inclusion in articles. Once the list of goals becomes too big, it should become a standalone list. That's what's happened here. "Milestone" goals are purely subjective and have no place in Wikipedia. We also should note that we avoid having lists on articles which are, by default, collapsed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd acknowledge that many football players have international goals listed in their articles via WP:EDITCONCENSUS, none have yet to have their own standalone list - even if they are far over the suggested 50kb for article size (like the previous examples). As per WP:SUMMARY: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." Milestone goals are simply notable ones - those that meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage. Funny Pika! 13:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define what a milestone goal is? Your opinion what a milestone goal may be different from mine. There's no doubt that international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that the phrase "meet the notablity criteria and gain significant coverage" would be synonymous with this by now, but I'll restate it for the purpose of this discussion. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that all "international goals from the third-highest scorer in female football history" are notable. Some of them are noteworthy in their own right and are mentioned in her article, but merely listing all her individual international caps and goals on a separate page is indiscriminate because goals which would have been notable are relegated to some minor tabulated detail without any critical commentary. Funny Pika! 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're both churning out the same old dross, just from different directions. I want the encyclopedia to be inclusive, not a paper one, you want it to avoid "statistics". Let's agree to disagree. Looks like you'll get your way in any case, and we should therefore remove all mention of anything other than these so called "noteworthy" goals (how did you define those, once again, because I bet I could source an article describing each and every Wambach international goal if that's what you really want...)? What are your criteria for "noteworthy goals"? If you want commentary, we could "expand" the list article, that's not too hard either. It's not a do-or-die scenario, you could actually suggest improvements if you really believe in what you're saying! (And note, please read WP:DISCRIMINATE before pointing at the not-relevant WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is far from an indiscriminate list of statistics. It is a well-defined set of items, all notable. And the article has over 200 references to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are. I'm not quite sure how to define "notable" goals for you without having to explicitly cut and paste the WP:General Notability Criteria, but I suppose an example would be Maradona's Hand of God goal and Goal of the Century during Argentina's 1986 World Cup quarter final match against England. Like I've already mentioned, her goals are already discussed succinctly here: Abby Wambach#International career. If you feel like contributing to that section, feel free. Getting back to the topic at hand, those 204 US Soccer references document her participation in each of the 204 international matches she's played in - which only go to confirm that they exist, not that they are in any way notable. Just because a notable person scores a goal does not mean that goal automatically inherits notability, which is what this list hinges on. Funny Pika! 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really, not at all. This list hinges on the fact that it's too large to exist in the main article. And it's clearly not a failing of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's a well defined set of data in an accessible format. Still, as I said, you just want to get rid of things like this, I can't see a problem as this is not a paper encyclopedia. Let's leave it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'm merely trying to ascertain whether I may have missed something but the same repetitive response over and over again is giving me pause for thought. You clearly think that international goals are not indiscriminate because they appear to be a definable set, whereas I don't believe they are a notable definable set. And so yes, Wikipedia is not meant to be WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Funny Pika! 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, your attempts to discuss this are well intentioned, I'm sure. In any case, thanks for your contributions, you seem very well abreast of the various SHORTCUTS having only been here three months, very keen work! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see how this list violates WP:NOTSTATS, which warns only against the inclusion of unwieldy and unnecessary detailed lists of information within articles ("Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.") - which obviously would be a problem if this monstrous table was included within Abby Wambach. If this list was poorly sourced or otherwise unmaintained then I could agree that it's an unnecessarily detailed set of information - but as it's up-to-date and verifiable to reliable sources, I simply view it as a valid split of bulky information as per WP:SPLIT that provides useful information to readers interested in more depth. ~ mazca talk 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the title is quite misleading - it should read something along the lines of List of Abby Wambach international statistics. Not only does it include individual international goals scored, but details of every international match played (tabulated in four different formats) and also a list of assists made by each of her teammates. If that doesn't fall under "Excessive listings of statistics" I'm not sure what would. Funny Pika! 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself could use some work, but the principle of the list's existence is really what we're debating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Harvardton (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but they seem to prove the principle that "international goals" being listed have community consensus, unless you can prove otherwise. Once a section of an article becomes too large, WP:SIZE, we split it off. That's why this article exists. If you want to delete this article, you want to delete international goals being listed in every article where they are listed. Correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I do not see any critical commentary that could be provided to supplement this stats listing. This is cruft. A pure stat listing of a players home runs was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season for the same reason. Articles are not WP:SPLIT just because they are long, but because the content being split is meaningful. Sorry, I'm not buying the OTHERSTUFF arguments without more convincing justification.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonds' season list is different, that's home runs in a single season in a domestic sport. This is career total goals in an international career, much more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The common point that I see is a statistics listing where few sources discusses many of the entries at once (unlike in the presidential election example). With all due respect to WP:LISTN, my standards are slightly stricter when it comes to a list of statistics.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apart from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, NBC, Sports Illustrated in a few seconds of looking? Oh, and FIFA seem to think her international goals are worth noting too.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The collective goals are notable. It just conflicts with NOTSTATS and CRUFT to have a statistical listing of each of 200+ games that included 155 goals. Perhaps the NOTSTATS policy can be clarified if I am in the minority.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, I can start a few ideas here. There are three clauses to NOTSTATS, (1) Summary-only descriptions of works - not applicable since this is real. (2) Lyrics databases - not applicable, this isn't lyrical. (3) Excessive listings of statistics. Aha, this must be the one. So the policy goes on to explain "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". Okay, this isn't the neatest of lists, but it can be improved. So just say the word, we can improve it. Secondly, I think sufficient explanatory text is already available. Don't you? So please, we can either improve the article a shade to reduce its "confusability", or just summarily delete it, because I can't see anything else in NOSTATS that this article breaches. Unless you'd care to clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did I say you can't have a list of goals within an individual article? No. Did I say you can't create a seperate article that contains stats yes? It's either you have a list of goals under the main article of the athlete or you don't list them at all. If these pages are kept then we might as well create List of Barcelona goals scored by Lionel Messi, List of Real Madrid goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo, List of Premier League titles won by Manchester United or aside from football, List of Touchdowns thrown by Brett Favre, List of World Series Titles by the New York Yankees, List of Home Runs hit by Barry Bonds, etc. But we can't do that. Why? Because it violates WP:NOTSTATS. Why are the articles I nominated any different? – Michael (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read WP:NOTSTATS and WP:DISCRIMINATE, this is clearly not an indiscriminate list and abides by the suggestions provided: "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Hmlarson (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus all the examples you've provided are on a domestic level, this list is international in its coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article is clearly in a bad way, breaching a number of our manual of style article, that is irrelevant when determining notability. The parent article is long enough that to add this list onto it would not be viable, and it is my belief that given the extraordinary number of goals that she has scored, and that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia this is a justified standalone list. Harrias talk 17:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, folks, but this list is just plain goofy and serves no significant encyclopedic purpose. (And, yes, for the record, I am an Abby Wambach fan.) We don't need lists of Babe Ruth's individual home runs, Dan Marino's individual touchdown passes, Michael Jordan's individual baskets, or Bobby Orr's individual hockey goals. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, a fansite, or a sports blog. This is yet another example of the unsupervised fancruft that grows in sports articles because some folks don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan blog. It is an endemic Wikipedia-wide problem in that many contributors simply don't have a firm grasp of what an appropriate level of detail is for a given subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point is that all of your examples are purely domestic and mean nothing to anyone outside the good ol' USA. Wambach's international goals have a global reach and are internationally significant, not just meaningful to the inward-looking NBL, NFL, NBA etc. You need to realise that international sport transcends the US borders, and is of interest to more than just the USA, unlike all the examples you've provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike Dirtlawyer1 (talk), I'm not particularly a Wambach fan – a bit handy with her elbows for my tastes – ask Faye White! And this article could do with some more prose, less psychedelic colours and new title, but these are no grounds for deletion. Bagumba (talk), I don't see any precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season. One of the reasons it was deleted was apparently because the same material was already covered sufficiently at List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds, which is (somewhat generously at first glance) a featured list. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, only one of the participants for the Bonds AfD cited duplication of List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds. The consensus to delete in that case was pretty much due to NOTSTATS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just statistic not an article.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scoring international goals isn't really a big deal; it's an honour, sure, but it's not a big deal, and I don't think it should even be listed in the biography article, let alone as a separate page. – PeeJay 14:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really is a big deal, especially when you've done it 155 times. This list cannot fit into the main article, if you object to international goals being listed, I'll assume you'll be deleting those sections from Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, George Best etc? I'm happy to do that if you agree that international goals shouldn't be listed anywhere in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 155 international goals is pretty good, yes, but to be fair, women play more international matches than men do, so it may sound impressive compared to male records, but it's not really comparable. And yes, I would like to delete those sections from those articles. In fact, I think there was a recent consensus at WT:FOOTY to do just that. – PeeJay 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all those voting delete, I'd like to ask if they would also ensure that all lists of international goals are removed from all international footballers, male and female, across all of Wikipedia. Voting delete here isn't really a vote to delete a standalone list which has become too large to easily be accommodated in the main article, it's clearly a vote to remove the existence of this kind of list of goals from Wikipedia altogether. What makes a "milestone" international goal? What makes a "notable" international goal? I don't know. What I do know is that having a factual list of international goals, sourced correctly does not do this computer-based encyclopaedia any harm. Deleting it, and therefore setting a precedent to remove all international goals from all articles possibly does harm what we're doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to run through this over and over again? Voting delete means people are voting to remove the two pages that I nominated. That's it. I never said a damn thing about removing a list of goals from every single page. – Michael (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the implication of your nomination. You think these lists are not notable. Hence the information is not notable, no matter where it exists. There's a reason why a few of these lists have been spun off to standalone lists, namely WP:SIZE. If you want to delete these lists, you want to remove all such lists from Wikipedia. There's no other logical explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be bundled as an WP:ALLORNOTHING proposition. This is about the need for standalone lists which enumerate one-by-one over a 100 games worth of statistics. The community is capable of applying precedent when warranted, as WP:OTHERSTUFF is often cited when past cases are applied incorrectly.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but deletion of lists of international goals, whether they be standalone or part of an article, is now contingent on this AFD whether you like it or not. Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind, but those who don't believe this list can stand alone really need to examine whether such lists can stand as part of a main article, since this information has been considered too much for inclusion there. We can improve this standalone list (note, AFD isn't just about saying "delete" it's about saying what you could do to save the list, something which I note many here haven't even considered, despite my invitation to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im a frequent editor in sports-related articles, but football just isnt one of my areas of strong areas. Based on arguments I see here, and in my general sports editing experience, I have yet to see satisfactory justification for complete game-by-game statistics, even if it is limited to international competition. I'd be all for WP:PRESERVE if I saw a viable proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abby Wambach: Honestly, I can't understand why I'm the only person who's voted merge so far. It's the perfect solution to the problem TRM poses above, while also making it clear that this doesn't deserve a standalone article pbp 20:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just WP:SIZE to contend with then. This list is branched out simply because it makes sense, if we consider the content suitable for a main article, then there's no reason not to consider it, with a suitable lead, and suitable sourcing, for a standalone list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles which are LIST. A search for list of goals returns several hundred results. Harvardton (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the topic (i.e. goals scored by Abby Wambach and Christine Sinclair at international level) has not been covered in -depth by reliable, third-party sources. It is therefore not notable. GiantSnowman 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Abby Wambach. Don't really see the relevance of WP:SIZE, the info would be in a collapsible table not affecting readability - or reading time, note that a collapsible table for goals already exists at the parent article - and the two pages together, without any kind of stripping, would be under 60k (based on article sizes of 53,710 and 4,916). SIZE says an article of 200KB would be commonly split, 60k is well under this limit. Also note that reading time would be significantly reduced if the article was trimmed, for example the 34 types of assist she has received - which, by the way, looks completely WP:OR. Therefore the logical conclusion would be to remove all the original research from the list, then merge it into a collapsible table in the parent article. C679 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find the guidance, but sometime, a long, long time ago, in a far away galaxy, I was taught that content of a page should never "by default" be collapsed. Otherwise, I don't dispute most of what you're saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but lists of international goals exists in hundreds or even thousands or articles on footballers across Wikipedia. These female footballers, have scored more goals then any other footballers (except Mia Hamm) and having these lists in the parent article would be problematic due to the size of the list, and I agree with The Rambling Man that lists like this shouldn't be collapsed in articles (isn't that what WP:COLLAPSE says?). When we do have lists of international goals in every article on international footballers, we should also allow the biggest lists to be stand-alone lists per WP:SPINOFF. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a fan site. Mootros (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Delete That's what fansites are for. Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a "fan site" article, it's a list of international goals which is too long to be hosted in the main article, per WP:SIZE. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Keep: Notable component of this particular football player's accomplishments that has achieved media coverage for this particular accomplishment. --LauraHale (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. There are sections in their individual articles describing their international accomplishments, a detailed list of every goal goes beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. It would be like a list of every ace achieved by Serena Williams in an international tournament. I appreciate the amount of work that went into this, but perhaps it would be better received in a football Wikia. J04n(talk page) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish. Serena will get 20 aces in a match. An international footballer will be lucky to score 20 goals in their entire career. So, to reiterate, "20 aces in two hours", "20 goals in 20 years". It just so happens this lady has scored a lot of goals, which is why her list of goals remains notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria's Secret Campaigns

edit
List of Victoria's Secret Campaigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content is basically just a copy-and-paste rehash of info in Victoria's Secret and Victoria's Secret Fashion Show under a name that the media doesn't cover as a topic.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaidee

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

Software project with no claim to notability. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ma Ke (fashion designer). J04n(talk page) 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXCEPTION de mixmind

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

Speedily deleted twice, prodded once; I think this needs deletion and WP:SALTing. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berner (supercentenarian)

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

If "being a supercentenarian" does not, in itself, qualify one for their own Wikipedia article, then this article defeats itself. The infobox clearly says that Carl Berner is "know for being a supercentenarian" and nothing else. He was the fifth oldest living man upon his death, but he was not the oldest in the Western hemisphere (James Sisnett) or in the United States (James McCoubrey). He was the oldest man in New York City, but the oldest person in the City as well as New York State was Susannah Mushatt Jones. As such, he does not even warrant a mention on the List of the oldest Americans by state. Finally, he is not among the list of the verified oldest people or one of oldest people generally. I conclude that this article be deleted.Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He received significant news coverage and was known for his work as a community activist and toy maker. Also, he was the oldest living man in the Northeastern United States at the time of his death, as well as the oldest living German-born man. He was also the oldest living German emigrant at the time of his death. He is also the second oldest German-born man ever, and the oldest German emigrant man ever. Futurist110 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not satisfying WP:BIO. I'm no impressed by claims someone is inherently notable because they are the oldest person of some particular national origin or in some arbitrary subdivision of a country. Edison (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't being the oldest German male emigrant ever notable? Also, for the record, Carl Berner was discussed in the media since at least 2002 (when he was 100), if not earlier. Futurist110 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Bearian's comments. ♫☼Rosa Clegg☼♫ talk 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and Finance

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

Non-notable journal. Despite what is claimed on its homepage, not included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (see http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark, I don't know what's going on either. However, I'm quite sure that "isisjournalsearch.com" has nothing to do with ISI (note that the URL -and website- say "ISIS", not "ISI"). This journal is not in the JCR, hence it has no Thomson Reuters impact factor. I can't imagine that TR would not include an economics journal with an effective IF of 1. So where this "impact factor" comes from or how it was calculated remains unclear. I agree that if this were indeed an ISI IF, that would make the journal absolutely notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for helping sort this out. I was misled by the title in the web page, "ISI - Journal List". But you are correct, this is nothing official from ISI. The uncertain origin of this impact factor means we should probably discount its contribution toward notability. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If an article could "do harm", then it would be a CSD, not an AfD. Having a bio of my gardener does no harm, but isn't very encyclopedic either. If "no harm in staying" were an argument at AfDs, then we could basically stop having them. --Randykitty (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked again and failed to find independent sources. With the above mentioned impact factor of dubious origin, I cannot find any notability criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NJournals that the journal satisfies. This suggests deletion, with no prejudice to re-creation if the journal eventually gains notability. --Mark viking (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naftalan, Croatia

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

WP:PROMOTION for a WP:NN and recently established spa. There's a city with the same name and it's also an old name for naphthalene, so it's a bit hard to search for, but I couldn't find any references in reliable sources. The only references in the article are to the spa's website and a press release republished in a local tourist guide. Pburka (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep or Defer - I'm not sure it really is nn - most listed spas are quite small, and this one has an unusual attribute in Napthalene. I find it hard to assign notability to any sort of quack remedy, so am not sure how it is judged for spas. I think it could be as notable as any other spa. Yes, it reads like self-promotion, but has it been bannered for improvement before being AFD'd? I can't see any evidence of that. I think this is rather a heavy sledgehammer if it hasn't. The number of contributors in the Balkans is far lower than in other parts of Europe, and the same standard of maintainence can't be expected.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:FRINGE group with no support in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

edit
The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in independent reliable sources (specifically, no indication of notability in non-fringe sources) a13ean (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A related page which I don't have time to AfD at the moment is The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Prizes. a13ean (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prize page is also non-notable due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a few fringe / unknown organisations participating in an ICCF18 workshop : ENEA http://old.enea.it/com/ingl/default.htm , University of Missouri, NRL and SRI are cooperating within the frame of an International Project supported by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Joint Declaration following the 10th Review Conference on Scientific and Technological Cooperation between Italy and the United States of America for the years 2011-2013). The research field is on Metal Hydrogen Systems for Energy Applications. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/enea_workshop.php Alanf777 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Prof Yeong Kim of Purdue University is co-chair, Purdue is not an official sponsor. ENIA and National Instruments are now listed as Partners. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/
  • Merge -- Cold fusion is apparently fringe science. It would seem that the society was formed out of the first ICCF, and is probably organising the subsequent ones. Participation from non-fringe bodies suggests that this is not completely fringe, perhaps because the objective (if achievable) is so desirable. However, we only need one article, and I would suggest that the others named by Alanf777 should be merged here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ICCF is a fringe group, asserting it is not (and CF then by extension) is really a bit of an exceptional claim. The sources are poor, so there is nothing worth merging. IRWolfie- (talk)
  • Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The material in the article is supported entirely by unreliable fringe sources, and there is sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of what they report. I don't see anything that is reliably sourced enough to be merged. My own search for sources turned up nothing significant or promising. In fact, I have seen no credible evidence that this "organization" is anything but a single person with a fax machine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can find even LESS information about the "International Society for the Study of Diseases of the Colon and Rectum" (A total of 31 googled links). Is it incorporated? Where? Who are its directors? Members?
The history of the ISCMNS is documented on their website http://www.iscmns.org/index.htm. It was incorporated in the UK 2004 and registered as a charity in 2006 : as part of that process it was specifically recognized as an International organization. It currently lists 212 members of whom I count 81 as belonging to a University, a government organization or a well-known company. http://www.iscmns.org/admin/list_of_members.htm (although not all have paid this years' dues). Alanf777 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but why were you talking about a different society (the rectum one)? I also don't see the relevance of the rest of the ISCNMNS self-published claims, being registered as a charity in the UK is hardly particularly difficult or noteworthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant WP:HOAX. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian David Constantinescu

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

Possible WP:HOAX, but certainly fails WP:GNG. Creator removed BLP PRODS repeatedly but only added Reference links to modeling agencies which have no mention of this individual. A search [1] found no sources (only 47 google hits), let alone any significant coverage. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rsocol, for digging up that image and demonstrating this was in fact a hoax. The page is deleted and the user blocked for disruption. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Collective

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

this article lacks notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by RACHCIS2011 (talk • contribs)

  • National Collective does NOT lack notability. It is one of the leading non-political party blogs which support Scottish Independence and such blogs are absolutely essential given the almost 100% support of the main Scottish Media for NO to Independence. This current proposal smells to high heaven and is probably because the Blog wrote a highly critical article about one of the millionaire donors to the No campaign who has little connection to Scotland. He was also the CEO when the Company was convicted in a US Court in 2006 for gross violations of the 'oil to Iran' oil embargo. The Company was fined millions of dollars and had to pay similar amounts in restitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.128.207 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't go for deletion. The threat of legal action may increase notability by generating references and press coverage in publications acceptable as sources to wikipedia- eg 'the Streisand Effect'. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Collective do not "lack notability". They are playing a vital part in providing citizen journalism and a space for artists, writers, musicians and creatives to engage in the campaign and referendum for Scottish independence. They are doing this against the back-drop of a highly biased UK media, and there is today a clear attempt to silence them after they produced an article detailing the nature of one of the major funders of the UKs campaign to keep Scotland from becoming independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that they've had one major video targeted for suppression by a political campaign, and that they broke (well, collated and published) a major story that has since been picked up by the Guardian, Scotsman, and Herald, I think they are well on their way to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.253.183 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timing of this article being marked for deletion on the same day the site has been served with a cease & desist type letter would make any reasonable person profoundly suspicious of the motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.166.221 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how National Collective can be considered for deletion. Alan Bisset is one of their key contributors. Alan Bisset is a keynote speaker at the launch of Yes Scotland campaign meetings such as Yes East Kilbride launch on 1st March 2013. National Collective is one of the key information sources out with the mainstream media on the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamBDavidson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to what other folk are saying, I don't think National Collective is going to become significant - I think it already is significant. More than enough references to National Collective in the media to satisfy the notability guidelines, and it has a part to play in the upcoming referendum. Let's not rush to delete it. Zcbeaton (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Organisation itself is notable perhaps the article itself could be expanded a little to reflect this? Of the two paragraphs that currently make up the article the first talks of the groups establishment but doesnt really explain what the group does and the Alan Bissett reference as to what the group seeks to do is from more than a year ago. The Second describes an attempt to shut the group down. Anyone care to put anything in between? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.83.56 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • who wants it deleted, the anti-independence brigade who are trying to hide their misdemeanours at least and downright criminality at worst. In the realisation that we need fair and democratic process, then silencing the opposition, who are bringing out the truth is wrong. In this respect alone National Collective are correct and should be allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.164.164 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recent publicity due to the dispute over Ian Taylor's donation to Better Together means that it satisifies WP:N and WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [This AfD came to my attention via Twitter I think. I should also confess that the artwork on my Facebook page is courtesy of National Collective.] This BBC clip (Newsnight Scotland, 10 April 2014, approx 03' 10" to 05' something) featured a discussion of the NC/Taylor stushie between Gordon Brewer (BBC) and Severin Carrell (Guardian). Brief mention in this Herald snippet and again in Euan McColm weekly stream-of-consciousness-from-a-shed piece here in Scotland on Sunday. I believe this also came up on BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland news show (on 10 or 11 April 2014 if anyone is inclined to look for the clip). I am thinking that a merge to the Ian Taylor article of the NC/Taylor thing wouldn't make the BLP police happy, especially if (as Carrell on Newsnicht and Robbie Dinwoodie on Good Morning Scotland yesterday both suggested that it would) this runs and runs. If the affaire runs down, quickly or otherwise, then the matter might be revisited with a view to merging content, but for now I am inclined to keep the article. There's no deadline after all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Singleton

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

Non notable former minor league ballplayer. Previous afd resulted in a consensus to merge but since the player is no longer active he should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the other afd for this guy, in addition to the one listed in the box. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I supported deletion before. Still fails WP:ATHLETE. This shouldn't reconstituted at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 15:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Butler Rugby Union Football Club

edit
Josephine Butler Rugby Union Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely WP:NN intramural sports club at Durham University. Not even close to passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Journey to the West characters. If someone feels strongly that it should be redirected elsewhere feel free to change it. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Sun Wukong

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

Going to get nommed sooner or later, so self-nom it is. Deletion rationale: Fails general notability guidelines (?) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Based on my knowledge, there is only "Sun Wukong", and no such thing as "Fake Sun Wukong". It also doesn't really make sense. People usually call the monkey "Sun Wukong", not "Fake ~". If something is nonexistant and you call it "fake", then shouldn't fairy tale characters have a "fake" in front of their names? Arctic Kangaroo 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Wukong, as everybody knows, is the main protagonist throughout the book, whereas Fake Sun Wukong is the six-eared monkey which appears in the lengthy chapter titled 真假孙悟空 (also 真假美猴王), in which this rare cosmic monkey takes up the form of Sun Wukong and steals their stuff. Really one of the more mention-worthy Journey to the West characters. A merge (to Sun Wukong) sounds sensible to me. @Arctic Kangaroo: Improve on your knowledge of Chinese literature ;) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't this be better off as a section under Sun Wukong? My perception is that this is an alter ego, rather than a completely different character within the story and I don't think it's notable separately from it. Funny Pika! 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I confused the character with something else. Funny Pika! 17:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To an extent, it can be classified as an "alter ego" -- the six-eared monkey seized upon Sun Wukong's negative thoughts to metamorphose into Wukong's appearance. That is, only externally, and the difference could still be told from beneath. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Grigoryan

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

Subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". No coverage other than the 1 reference in the article which is a brief mention and only shows the position the person held. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A redirect of the page may be appropriate, but does not meet requirements for a stand alone article. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is neither an elected local official nor an unelected candidate for political office, so the deletion rationale offered is inapplicable. The part of WP:POLITICIAN that does apply is "politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Depending on how we interpret the status of Nagorno-Karabakh Grigoryan has held either national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) office. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for the rationale. I am not sure how to interpret his position, I am only going on you saying that he passes WP:POLITICIAN; however, I still do not see how he meets notability. As notability is not inherent from him being a politician who has held office, can you point to the WP:RS that establish his notability. Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLITICIAN is part of a notability guideline, and says that notability is inherent from him being a politician who has held office at national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) level. If you recognise Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country then Grigoryan held office at national level, and if you don't then he held office at subnational (statewide/provincewide) level. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again. The footnote to the section you cite, Section 1 under WP:POLITICIAN, states that holding office is a secondary criterion and that "people who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion," but doesn't state that they always satisfy the primary criterion. Unfortunately, this person does NOT satisfy the primary criterion of having multiple, significant, and reliable sources. There is nothing in there that states they are inherently notable. In fact, the footnote is clear that it is a secondary criterion.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that it is "perfectly clear." It states, "However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." This is an "ignore all rules" type policy that is set out to make sure that Wikipedia lists those who have held major political offices, regardless of them receiving significant coverage. As implied by both of the keep votes at this point, I do not think anyone would consider the office that he holds as a major office and therefore the secondary criterion would not apply. If so, we could list anyone who has ever been in a "political office" in any country in the world. Also, I feel that if his political office was a major one, there would be an article here in Wikipedia listing such or some significant coverage about the position. Again, as it is not a major political office, second criterion would not apply and significant coverage would be needed. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A government minister in the effective government of a de facto independent country is a major political office by any reasonable definition, including the definition in WP:POLITICIAN that I have already quoted several times above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think under any definition, a "major office" includes individuals who create and shape policy for a nation or a subnational government. This is how I interpret the intent of WP:POLITICIAN. The guideline does not state that all elected officials should have a page on Wikipedia, and the guidelines exclude local elected officials. Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is (was) an elected member of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic national assembly and would meet WP:Politician. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is only recognized by four other nations, though. Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would pose the same question to you as well. Can you point to the WP:RS or are we to just assume that he is/was an elected member of the national assembly based on a brief mention as opposed to significant coverage in reliable sources? Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the minister have an article? I couldn't find one and it seems rather odd that a deputy minister gets to have an article, but not the minister. I'm leaning towards "delete" at this point. George Spurlin (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The minister certainly should have an article, but if it hasn't been created yet that is not a reason to delete an article about the deputy minister. Wikipedia is far from complete. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't require that subjects should be ministers or deputy ministers - it's enough that they are legislators at the national or subnational (statewide/provincewide) level, one of which applies to Grigoryan. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Phil Bridger. He is definitely a notable figure due to his service as a minister of a significant self-autonomous republic. Anyhow, I am in the process of improving the article as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitive Collection of B-Sides & Rarities

edit
The Definitive Collection of B-Sides & Rarities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article itself says this is "unofficial". I see no sources out there to establish any notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff mcwherter

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

Just another web developer with no signs of significant notability. Local awards as a "man to watch" indicate he may become notable, but not really notable yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 05:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bailey (drummer)

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

Non-notable session musician. No signs of any significant independent coverage of this artist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Blue of Yale

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

Non-notable college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. Expired PROD reversed on procedural grounds. GrapedApe (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venini

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

A short-lived band that is hanging its fame on the fact its founder was a member of Pulp. Most of the article is about what happened subsequently to its members. The article has remained unsourced for 5 years! I can't find anything to indicate Venini meets any notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep - improvements convince me that this is worth keeping as a separate article. --Michig (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think this is a good candidate for merging as Russell was not the only notable member of the group. I'll take the time to fix the sources if it's left alone for a couple of weeks. It's been difficult previously because music magazines from the mid-late 90s tend not to be online, but more has become available recently, as noted above. As for basic notability, they clearly meet critera 1, 4 and 6 of WP:BAND - it's just a matter of demonstating this in the article. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think that this page should stay because Russell is not the only important member of the band who this page should be linking to. the man from ladytron is here as well and people using the ladytron page should be able to come here to find out about his non-ladytron work rather than have to go to russel seniors page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.164.145 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 socking allegations being thrown around, it is impossible for me to determine a clear consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lalić

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

2131 is not in anyway an exceptional chess rating in the scheme of things. Another 169 points are required just to be an FM. Writing articles for CHESS magazine does not a notable person make (I have had an article published in a well known publication, believe me when I say that you haven't heard of me!), and neither does being the son of a Grandmaster. Personally, I am within a few Elo points of this person, and I am strong enough to understand how little I know about the game. Given that this person's entry on wikipedia relates to them being a chess player, they should at least be of FM standard to be afforded an entry. Mendoza2909 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Delete; there don't seem to be enough sources to establish notability at this point. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most Weak keep -- It looks as if he is on his way to bigger things. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Personally, I am also within a few Elo points of this person, and I agree that his Elo rating alone does not make him notable. However, I think being the youngest ever regular contributor to the CHESS magazine and the youngest ECF certified coach makes him notable. M701 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Peter is certainly notable, firstly because his FIDE ELO rating is >2000, which makes him an "expert" class chess player at the International level and he has also received the United Kingdom/British Chess distinction of "National Master." He has a massively popular YouTube Channel with more than 600 chess video analysis uploads, and his channel has been ranked as one of the top 10 chess YouTube channels in the World by a major chess news and analysis blog. That's not just notable, but an absolutely remarkable achievement since only a handful of people have maintained a prominent YouTube Chess Channel successfully. Peter is also the son of two Grandmasters...certainly a very notable distinction considering I've heard of no other expert class or better chess player having BOTH their parents as Grandmasters...Peter's father, Bogdon Lalic has written chess books, and his mother, Susan Lalic, was the top British Woman Grandmaster for the majority of the 80s and 90s. Because Peter has followed in their footsteps, his relationship to them is obviously significant. And certainly his age alone qualifies him as a prodigy since he achieved expert level at the age of 16 or 17. I actually question why Peter's article is up for deletion in the first place. The first comment from Mendoza2909 sounds very berating and does not acknowledge any of Peter's very notable characteristics, which makes his position clear: it's not a very open-minded critique of Peter's notability in the chess world, and a total disregard for all the citations and public references supporting all these points of notability. It seems to me someone doesn't like Peter and is using this speedy deletion nomination process as a troll-like reprisal. There are more than enough publicly-verifiable sources to establish this emerging prodigy's notability, and this article is very informative. Keep this article by all means. Piewalker Piewalker 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without regard to this particular article--I do not understand the ranking system well enough to trust my judgment about it-- we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article. I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now. It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply

Several points - 1. 19 years old is way too old to be an emerging prodigy. Actually it's not a prodigy at all. I am in my early 20s. Maybe I am not emerging any more, but do I still get to be a prodigy, given my rating of over 2100?

2. Apparently my first sentence sounds very berating. I would reply that my rating is within 10 Elo points of Peter so actually, I am completely honest as I know exactly of what I speak. Our ratings are close enough that if we played 100 games, our current ratings indicate that Peter would win about 51-52 and I would win 48-49. (Feel free to correct me anyone, but I'm not far off). In reality, there is enough margin of error in the elo rating system that it is impossible to detect a real difference in our standard. As I said, I know enough about the game and my own place within it to know that I am not an expert. At a stretch I would call myself a very good club player. By extension, I would call Peter a very good club player, no more.

3. National Master is a title created by the British Chess Federation. It is not internationally recognised. Once you have reached a certain standard, you pay a fee and you get awarded the title. Many players don't bother and save a few pounds. In my view it is there to create a bit of extra cash. All due respect to Peter for having earned this title, but he has such a long way to go before reaching an internationally accredited title. I'm sure it's a very impressive thing to say at parties to non-chess players, but chess players should be under no illusion that it is anything other than recognition of a strong club player. If he ever reaches FM I'm sure you'll find that National Master title disappears from his CV very quickly.

4. You say that Peter Lalic is an "expert" class chess player at the International level'. I would bet a lot of money that Peter will never play in a senior international competition for Britain on merit. Glorney and Faber doesn't count in my book unfortunately.

5. Is being 153rd ranked chess player in Britain a notable achievement? Really?

6. Chessgames.com... hmm... Play in an international open tournament and your games will likely end up on a database. Especially if you played a GM in the first or second round (because your seeding is that low) and lose.

7. The guy obviously loves chess, wants to improve and submitting articles to a chess magazine is a part of that. But it's something anyone of certain standard can do. Write enough articles and eventually they'll get published. Doesn't mean I'm a good player. Or that anyone over 2200 won't just skip over the stuff he writes. Yes, I've read some of it.

8. This person William Stewart. He ranks Peter's channel as one of the top 10 chess channels on youtube. Apparently he is famous. I have never heard of him. Believe me when I say most people haven't heard of him. He doesn't have a Wikipedia page (a general indicator of notability) despite being ranked 150 points higher than Peter. He is however a chess coach, like Peter. Maybe they have heard of each other. Maybe they have even met each other. Who knows? Anyway, I will repeat he is not famous, nor a chess player that the general chess public will listen to, therefore his opinion should not be counted. This should be higher up the list, but I am on a roll.

9. I have never met Peter Lalic. I have no reason to dislike Peter Lalic. I dislike this Wikipedia page as it attempts to portray a strong club player as something he is not.

10. It is obviously significant that he is the son of two notable chess players, but this significance should surely come after the fact of establishing his own notability. I therefore disregard everything you say on the matter of his parents, although I will say...

11. Susan Lalic is not a Grandmaster. She is a Woman Grandmaster. The standard for achieving the title of WGM is lower. As a WGM, IM and 5 time British Champion (respect!) she is certainly deserving of an entry on Wikipedia. I am a man for the details!

Apologies for the formatting if it isn't good. By the way, I think myself a good player, but I know exactly where I stand among the greats, and that is precisely nowhere. I know enough to appreciate their greatness and to strive for it myself, even if it's only for one game.

Mendoza2909 ( talk ) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ECF Accredited Coaches ECF Accredited Coaches have fulfilled the following requirements:

1) They hold an Enhanced CRB Clearance, which is less than three years old.

2) They have supplied two professional character references to the satisfaction of the ECF.

3) They have supplied the Manager of Coaching with details of previous coaching or teaching experience.

4) They are a current ECF member.


Actually this is ridiculous. He is touted as the youngest ever coach in the ECF. All he had to do was have previously taught in schools and pass a criminal background check. So much about this article screams mediocrity (compared to anyone, you know, notable). 2131 ranking, 17th in British championships, National Master, Board 3 of the U-18 team. He played in the British championships, therefore his games will get onto chessgames.com. (The highest rated player he beat in that competition was 2271. Nothing special. I've beaten a 2400. I'm sure he has too.) Altogether it adds up to an above average chess player (and not more). By the way, the Glorney Cup only involves Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, so again his board prize sounds impressive until you realise that he was competing for it against 3 other people.

I realise it does sound like I have some sort of vendetta here. I don't, have never met the guy. As regards playing strength, the internet does have a habit of providing anonymity, but if you choose to believe me, my Elo of >2100 means I know what I am talking about. I think this page is an abomination and that is why I am still here, writing this message. Every playing achievement listed here has been painted in a far rosier light than is actually the case. So has the coaching achievement. He's not a chip off the old block, as it is unlikely he will ever reach the playing strength of either of his parents. That's the way chess goes, it is a young (wo)man's game.

If you think that contributing regularly to a magazine makes him notable then so be it (How regularly is regularly?). If that is the case, then can I suggest a substantial rewrite of everything else here, as he should be listed primarily as a chess contributor. Or perhaps as a chess coach. Certainly not as a chess player though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendoza2909 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no inherent notability, like for pro athletes in football, for being a chess player at this level. way below the top, and certainly notability cannot be inherited from mom and dad. There is no inherent notability for being a contributor to a specialized magazine. Most of the refs are very specialized and only have score listings or brief mention. Has a source such as the BBC or the Times had significant coverage? Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO at this time, though if he advances in the field he might in the future. Edison (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion he's a notable chess prodigy is downright silly; here is a list of the strongest players born in 1994, and Peter Lalić is nowhere to be seen. (He's #313 in the world among players born that year, and perhaps the top eight or so might reasonably be called chess prodigies. Of the top ten, only five have articles at the moment - the top five, as it happens.) In short, he isn't notable as a prodigy or as a chess player... and for him to be notable for his magazine or YouTube contributions, he'd have to meet WP:AUTHOR, which he does not. Sideways713 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Piewalker (talk), who strongly advocated keeping this article, is using his YouTube channel to advertise Peter Lalić and his coaching services and would thus seem to have a conflict of interest here. Sideways713 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable for age/family. Plus given immediately prior sockpuppet case and chess AfDs continuing April 1 with User:Lampenstein see no reason to encourage easy deletions here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally think it's too early to recognize Peter Lalic as notable. I seriously doubt, if it weren't for his name and famous parents, that the world outside of the UK would know much or anything about him. It could only be through his regular monthly CHESS column, which is decent enough, but has only a kind of 'bits and pieces' type content that most strong club chess players could put together with a bit of application. Hence, if he is to justify an article, then I would say he needs to have his books/writings highly acclaimed in some sense, and/or gain the IM title (not just the FM title), or train a very successful player, if coaching is a route he pursues. Right now, I'm not sure he knows himself which activity he wishes to specialize in and we will only find out with the passage of time. As a long-time editor here, I am only applying the criteria that we have always used as a rule of thumb, and that is, (1) minimum GM title or (2) IM title with notable skills in some other chess-related activity. Clearly, there will be some exceptions (where someone has no chess title but is a leading figure in their field, e.g. the current FIDE President); however, right now I would put him in a category that is aspiring to meet the second criteria above, and he is not there yet. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable present. For those that think "expert" is a high chess title, other than World Champions, there are players with the Grandmaster title, then International Master title, then FIDE Master and Candidate Master. "Expert" is generally the same as "candidate master", a lower title. The chess project generally considers grandmasters to be notable. An International Master or below is not considered notable as a player, but they might be notable in some other way. I don't think that applies here - not enough to assert notability at this time. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Lalic simply does not meet these criteria. No significant chess accomplishments and a rating insufficient to overturn the basic criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello. I appear to have registered this account and nominated this article for deletion at precisely the wrong time as it obviously looks suspicious. How would you like me to prove that I am not who you think I am? Mendoza2909 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is getting a bit sinister! A closer inspection of the nominator has recently revealed some suspicious activity. Not only is he a known sock-puppeteer, but some of his reasons for deletion resemble a smear campaign! I don't know what this user has against Lalic, who just seems to be an honest chess person working up the ladder. It is obvious that the article doesn't claim him to be a prodigy; what makes him notable is the breadth of his contribution to the game: playing, coaching, writing, lecturing, etc. Many International and Grand masters cannot boast such an impact on English chess, especially at such a young age. Why delete the page when in a couple of years he will be titled anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.2.25 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very weak "Keep" arguments. And I supposed the opposite of a "smear campaign" is a promotional one. p.s. I don't care if the Devil himself or herself was the nominator, this article merits removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in strongest possible terms. Hello. This article is obviously nothing more than a "puff piece" manufactured by pro-Slavic partisans in the British chess world. The subject's chess rating hardly rates him mention in his local Church Easter newsletter, much less on Wikipedia. And yes, his mother may be a "Woman's Grandmaster," whatever that is, but that hardly makes him notable on his own. Furthermore, his "contributions" to some chess publications merit no more notice than the "Letters from Readers" submissions in Boys Life magazine circa 1972. Those "arguing" keep here are regurgitating nothing more than pabulum. Thank you. Runsledale (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey OGB! (This isn't obvious? By intent or incompetence, that is what I long to know ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! How are you, Ihardly? More of the latter, however, I have no idea who this "Mendoza" fellow is, or why he is trying so hard to imitate Wiki_brah. In any case, have a good day. Thank you. Runsledale Bang some sluts! 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sasata. "Bang some sluts!"—he had to let us know. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GiantSnowman 20:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Jensen

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

His only appearance in a fully pro match, came in the stoppage time against Vejle BK in 2008 [11]. He also played I have found nothing about this guy, since he had an unsuccessful trial with Norwegian club Bodø/Glimt in August 2011.

Even though he technically passes WP:NFOOTY, there is plenty of consensus in recent AfD's that playing a couple of minutes does not confer notability. This footballer also fails WP:GNG, as there isn't enough reliable sources out there that covers his career in detail. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I should have mention that one in my rationale: He also appeared in a UEFA Cup qualifier match against Cliftonville, but as the Northern Irish league is not fully pro, that match does not count NFOOTY; it is the one minute against Vejle that makes him pass NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For GNG, here is one piece of coverage. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's only the first paragraph in the "U-landslag" section that refers to Jensen, and that paragraph only says that he has played one match for FC København in three years, got 14 caps at youth international level, and that his contract expired that summer. I also found this, which says that Jensen did not get a contract with Bodø/Glimt because Mounir Hamoud did not leave the club, but that Bodø/Glimt was open to sign Jensen at a later point. This piece says that Jensen transferred to the amateur side Akademisk Boldklub, but that he was waiting for a new offer from Bodø/Glimt, while this says that Jensen will not wait for an offer from Bodø/Glimt, but instead look for another club to play for. I don't think that this is enough for GNG, but I anyone is better to look for sources than me, I will probably change my opinion. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the article on Danish wikipedia. In relation to his career he has played 5 matches for FC Copenhagen, one of them against Cliftonville FC in the UEFA League tournament. The match mentioned above against Vejle BK was a training match and is not included in the 5 "real" matches for FCK. Apart from Cliftonville FC he played against Viby IF in the Danish Cup (substitute after 62') and 3 other matches in the Danish Superliga. FC Copenhagen has just changed the format of its website, and apparently they have confused Danni Jensen with Daniel Jensen, so the three Superliga matches refers to three matches by Daniel, and not Danni. But the 5 matches are correct. It is not possible to deep-link into the new FCK-web site, so I cannot deliver a deep link, but information to the matches (and training matches) can be found on www.fck.dk.

After expiry of the FCK pro contract contract Danni Jensen trained with Akademisk Boldklub (Danish 1st Division) and Norwegian Bodø/Glimt. After the Norwegian team he joined Akademisk Boldklub, apparently as an amateur. In the Summer 2012 he moved to Boldklubben Avarta (Danish 2nd Division East) on a (semi?)pro contract. In February 2013 he moved to Boldklubben Frem, once a top club (six Danish titles) but today playing in 2nd Division. I expect his contract to be semi-pro.

He has made 14 appearances for the Danish national youth teams. There are links on the Danish article documenting the above, however, the time with FCK is a bit blurry on the new FCK-website.

The above are the facts. He meets the criteria on notability on Danish Wikipedia; whether this is the case on English Wikipedia is up to others to decide. Pugilist (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of first-team games verifiable, as per Pugilist. Pugilist, thank you so much for your help. Really appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't doubt that what you are saying is correct, but neither is supported by reliable sources, not even in the article on Danish Wikipedia. His Soccerway profile claims he has played two official matches for FC København, the match in the UEFA Cup against Cliftonville on 31 July 2008 and the Superliga match against Vejle on 6 October 2008 (not a friendly match). Do you have any reliable sources to support your claim that he has played 3 matches in Superligaen, or that he played 5 matches in total? (The soccerway profile says he was on the bench for two more Superligaen matches, but I'm sure you don't include those in your counting) And do you have any reliable sources that covers his career after 2011 ? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, the FCK-website has recently been updated making it impossible to deep link into player profiles. You therefore need to make a search on the player name from this site. If you search the player, you will find that he is noted for three Superliga games. Matches "on the bench" is not included in the statistics. Unfortunately, the update of the website is not perfect (to say the least) as the three delivered links to the three matches refers to three matches played by another player with an almost similar name. The Danish Wikipedia article contained matchinfo based on the previous more reliable FCK website. Pugilist (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, please see this article from a reliable website confirming the 5 noted matches for FCK. The article is in Danish; if you are not able to read it you can do a Google translate. The article on the Danish Wikipedia contains a link to the article from bold.dk. Pugilist (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for Danni Jensen on the FCK-site, I get 5 matches total (without friendlies) with 4 of them being after Jensen left FCK, so I don't think we can rely on that site. I am Norwegian, so reading Danish isn't really any problem. "Førsteholdskampe" means "first-team matches", but that can include friendlies can't it? This article says that he got "one oficielle match" (én offisiell kamp) which in Norwegian usage means competetive matches (exluding friendlies). However, the discussion about how many appearances for FCK this guy got can continue on the talk-page, I'm withdrawing the nomination as I'm confident that this topic passes WP:GNG. Thank you for your help, Pugilist. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new FCK-website has been improved the last few days and now contains reliable information. The 5 games for the player can now be confirmed. According to the website the 5 matches are one Superliga appearance, 3 Cup appearances and one UEFA Leage qualifier and 20 friendlies. Pugilist (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nicholls

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

Official at Cambridge University, only reference to the University itself. According to the deprodder, he is clearly notable, yet I cannot find any articles in the media specifically about him apart from a snippet on the Times Higher Educational Supplement and one article in the local paper about his appointment. I'm not sure this is tha "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Number 57 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference on the page currently links us to a list of news items. So, as it is all of this living person's personal details are not sourced, which means that the article should be deleted, unless it can be reliably sourced. Danrok (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please remember to look in the obvious places such as Who's Who WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who, and (b) why would I have a copy of such a book or an online subscription to it? I spent several minutes looking for online sources and found almost nothing. Even with Who's Who, is this still "significant coverage"? Number 57 11:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would it be obvious to look in Who's Who about a person in a prominent position in Britain today? Frankly, well, words just fail me... As to your second point, any library in Britain should have a copy of Who's Who and/or offer online access to it to members. Your not having easy access to a copy (i.e. not at the touch of a button) is not a good reason to nominate for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely if a current person is notable, there would be material about them in the online press. Do you really expect people to trawl libraries looking for books for references about someone currently in post? If words fail you, then you need to consider some serious changes to your attitude. Number 57 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do expect people to do that. AfD nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before in a thorough and conscientious manner in order to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk).
I read WP:Before, and it recommends doing online searches (which I did, and found almost nothing apart from the two links I provided in the AfD rationale), nothing about going to libraries to look through books. Even if this was the case, I would consider it incredibly unreasonable - if material about a current figure cannot be found online, then why would one expect to find it in a book? I can fully understand this being the case for a historic figure, but certainly not for now. Number 57 22:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know that the Registrar of Cambridge University is likely to have an entry in Who's Who then you might wish to consider if you have enough knowledge of this area to edit usefully in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Well said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what we expect. The onus is on the editor nominating for deletion to check relevant major reference works to make sure the person is or isn't listed. Otherwise it sounds like a case of "I haven't heard of him so he can't be notable", coupled with "Google is the fount of all knowledge", both of which are exceptionally poor reasons for deletion. And it's not as if WW is exactly obscure. I would expect anyone nominating an article on a living British person to check WW before nominating for deletion, just as I would except anyone nominating an article on a deceased person to check Who Was Who, the DNB and The Times obituaries, inclusion in any of which confer likely notability. A large number of us do have access to these works. They are all online and they are all accessible online by members of most decent public libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think that editors need to check Who's Who to find someone in the internet era, then something here is clearly broken. Number 57 08:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since WW is on the internet, I fail to see why. Heaven forfend that we should actually have to check a standard reference work! Far too much hassle, obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Pelz

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

This article appears to have been created by the subject or someone related to the subject in violation of the policy on conflicts of interest. Also, the subject is of questionable notability. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copying arguments against deletion from the article's talk page

Contested deletion

The entry on Bettina Pelz in Wikipedia is very important and shouldn't be deleted. She is a pioneer as a curator for light art projects in public space. With her sensibility, experience and international network she has profiled and enriched this new art form. Public access to her activities via Wikipedia is vital for light art and is of not only informative but as well didactic value - Francesco Mariotti

This page should not be speedily deleted because, I will add some further references and links, just need a bit more time --Kunstpelz (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kunstpelz. Judging by your username you appear to have a relationship with the subject of this article, in which case you should not be editing on this page. Please see the policy on conflicts of interest. More information on this subject is included in the links that I left on your talk page. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be kept. the emerging artform of light art and light art festivals is important to the art world. whereas several festivals are more an entertaining "nice night out" event the curator Bettina Pelz picks up the challenge to combine avantgarde artistic approaches with the specific situation of a city. in the field of light art she is one of the first curators to deal with this subject at all and influenced several artists and other curators. Count her as one of the top ten light art curators worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kniedichrein (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the entry as Bettina Pelz is one of the great ones. There needs to be more work done in this field and she is one of the best ones to do it, as her knowledge, abilities, passion and dedication are admirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.204.202 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. She schould be an inspiration for all curators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.164.171 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be kept. Due to Bettina Pelz' work the use of light in public spaces during the temporary public festivals she had curated had shifed from pur decoration to a means of art. Her work as a curator had set high standards. (Lichtlilie (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (we, OCUBO, consider Bettina Pelz as a major contributor in the field of Light Festival. her participations are numerous and she is clearly a refence in this field. surely more professionals in the field would miss this information about her and the light festival history) --89.153.233.123 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be deleted. Bettina Pelz is leading in organization and as curator of light art festivals Europe wide. She initiates and integrates the support of light art and lighting design by industries, communes and public funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.88.93 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ENTRANCE SHOULD BE KEPT Bettina Pelz is an international reference for light art and lighting design, she is not only known and respected as a curator of quality festivals but also as a pioneer and improver in this fields. I think her work, her thoughts and research on this subjects are fundamental to be known by new generations of artist who want to learn, grow and have a professional development... For all those interested in light, technology, public art, lighting design, she should stay as a reference.- Ghiju Díaz de León — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiju (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • After nominating an article for deletion I usually prefer to stay out of the discussion and let the process take over. However I am still concerned with this particular article because of the apparent conflict of interest. I also find it unusual that all of the arguments on the talk page are by editors who a) have never contributed anything to WP other than the comment in the article's talk page. Some of the comments are from unsigned IPs and others from brand new editors who apparently got an account just to vote. I also further note that all of these editors overlooked the (to me) very obvious link to this discussion and instead edited the talk page which makes me question their independence. Finally, a cursory search on the internet reveals that Ms. Pelz is mentioned on a number of promotional sites but I could not find any online news article or similar reliable source. Most of the sources in the article appear to be from sites promoting the genre or specific events and are not reliable sources for establishing notability. I would feel much more confidence in the result of this discussion if at least some of the participants were establish WP editors. Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there's a case for arguing she meets WP:CREATIVE as the creator of one or more notable works (her works being exhibitions or installations), e.g. Lichtrouten has some press[12][13][14]. However the existing article does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia article on a creative individual: it needs to have an independently-referenced explanation of her importance as a curator (e.g. references to media or scholarly articles that explain her importance, not written by herself, her employees, colleagues or friends); a summary of critical opinions of her work (with references to reviews); ideally, information about her development as an artist/curator, influences, working practices, etc; and not just be a CV-style list of her various jobs and who she worked with. Virtually none of the references on the article currently provide independent analysis: this is a massive failure to produce an article that accords with Wikipedia policies. Someone fix it, please! --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Grant

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

Actress with very little indication of notability. As far as I can tell, she only has one major film role, and there's very little coverage of her to be found. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until she gets more big roles and more press. The Hollywood News article is an interview[15] and therefore not a WP:RS reliable source. There's not much other press: just directories and listings. And she's only had one significant role according to IMDb. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her IMDB UK entry has two credits. One of the sources doesn't mention her, another is literally just a headshot, one is an IMDB listing for the movie, and the other is a trade website for casting calls which shows her theater credits. This has no place on Wikipedia. --NINTENDUDE64 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted G11 by INeverCry (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of the prophets

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

Non-notable game mod; WP:GAMECRUFT. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Might be suitable for CSD but wasn't sure what exact category. Mkdwtalk 07:15, 12 April 2013 (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) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable mod. If there happens to be a ref or two from a reliable source that demonstrates it being noteworthy out of the massive sea of fan-made mods out on the internet, then maybe put it as a single sentence in the respective Halo article or something. (Its a long ways from warranting its own article.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keep and merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell or High Water (album)

edit
Hell or High Water (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, which fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. It is referenced only to myspace and to a releases listing. Since there is no WP:RS-referenced material, there is nothing to merge, and the album is already listed in the band's article As Cities Burn. No redirect should be retained because the disambiguated title is not a plausible search term, and the album is listed in Hell or High Water (disambiguation). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) nerdfighter 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Gosnell

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

I think this page should be deleted for several reasons. First, it is about a living, alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BIO, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Second, this person does not meet other notability criteria. His case has not received national attention. It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Mellie107 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is met and this incident has received serious coverage and consideration even in the case of no conviction yet. Secondly, that instruction is a cautionary note on the bottom, but not meant to supersede criteria #2: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. His investigation has be so widely noted that using a lack of conviction, which also does not preclude articles of that type to not be created, would be borderline "asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" -WP:WL. But I certainly understand your point. Mkdwtalk 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the trial is a current event, how can there be coverage "which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"? By definition, it's all contemporaneous for now. - Dravecky (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuntely the 2013 trial coverage is only a small fraction of the coverage the article relies on in which in 2011 broke onto the international stage. Two very different in nature, separated by years , and in the legal world of criminal investigations, a lengthy period of time to even reach pleas, with strong inductors that this has already affected state policies, political senate campaigns, and some calling it the most horrific case of feticide. Mkdwtalk 12:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its also part of a wider debate on Abortion and does not relate solely to the criminal case but could also involve a large discussion by both pro choice and pro life advocates as to abortion providers (im sure the discourse exists specific to him and ill go find it but I wasnt up for adding to the article unless a decision has been made and as im not an experienced wiki user im not sure what the layout of a BIO requires etc) --Fredbobhurst (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Fredbobhurst stated it perfectly. TJIC (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This very deletion request is a WP:NPOV violation. This story has been supressed, and needs to be brought to light. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This story is very important because the main stream media refuses to cover it. It involves alleged of beheading babies that survived abortions and people searching may only find this article since there are barely any stories from the major news outlets. ClassicallyLiberal (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of sources from reliable groups. Details are gruesome enough that this goes beyond a 'local crime story' (Jodi Arias, anyone?). No reason to delete other than to suppress a less-than-favorable instance regarding abortion. Toa Nidhiki05 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite majorly. At present the article flagrantly violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - we are not a tabloid news outlet. I'd recommend stubbifying the page to a bare minimum of sourced biographical detail and a mention of the trial, with the prospect of expansion in the future if and only if a conviction is secure. Otherwise, we might as well be working for The Sun. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion speaks to the idiocy and ideological blinders of some Wikipedia administrators/editors. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Luke Sneeringer (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a significant story affecting a major matter of national policy, irrespective of specific media coverage. It deserves to remain; deleting it sends a far stronger message than leaving it in. WesternActor (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe you should keep the page but only refer to known facts, like his name - occupation - and what he has been charged with and why. I don't think you should use quotes from victims and/or possible witnesses at this point until the trial is under way and it is public knowledge. I am not trying to protect him, but don't think it is Wikipedia's job to report the news, just the facts.Terryoaka (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Terry you are misinformed - "at this point" the trial has been in session since March 18 "until the trial is under way" it is underway! Perhaps the reason you're unaware is "and it is public knowledge." because of a blatant media blackout (refer to twitter #Gosnell) and the discomfiture of the location of the crime scene -- not in some obscure slum 'hood section of the Philly Badlands -- 15 minute walking distance from U Penn Wharton Drexel University_of_the_Sciences (former Philadelphia College of Pharmacy (PCP), the first college of pharmacy in the nation)? People knew this place existed close to the rail station easy to for out of towners like Karnamaya Mongar to find, and then... die there. MrsKrishan (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP as long as 2012 Aurora Shooting is considered apt. Perhapts it should be renamed to the crime rather than the accused? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think it might make sense to rename this to be about the crime, and not a bio about Gosnell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article in its current state contains many violations of WP:BLP. These should be immediately removed. — goethean 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP First, Dr. Gosnell has had his licensed revoked in one state, suspended in another, and surrendered in a third state. Thus, at least one final action by an adjudicating body has occurred. Moreover, all three medical boards have found Gosnell to be a public threat. Thus, despite a lack of CRIMINAL conviction (yet), this man has been adjudicated as a threat to the public safety and welfare of three states by medical boards. Second, this is no more a local crime issue than Trayvon Martin or the Connecticut school shooting, which are covered by Wiki. Third, abortion regulation is a national and even international discussion. Fourth, the facts behind Gosnell's licensure revocation(s) and criminal trial have been suppressed by the USA mainstream liberal media, but not by other media outlets, as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Fifth, cherry picked deletions of "uncomfortable" (to a liberal) subjects such as this negative abortion entry would reveal political bias on Wiki's part, and in that case I and my friends would like our donations to Wiki returned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216:37, 12 April 2013‎ (talk) 216.201.171.182
  • Keep Rename to Trial of Kermit Gosnell (with appropriate rewrite) The article is not about a particular person who has been accused of a local crime of transient notoriety but about the well documented facts surrounding the involvement of a person in the ensuing investigation of an event of demonstrable historical significance and international notoriety. Whether or not there has been a "suppression of information in the media" is irrelevant to this purpose; this type of allegation itself should not be speculated upon or even mentioned unless it is otherwise independently verified and well sourced (a perceived lack of coverage in a segment of the media or on any regional scale does not itself invalidate the notability otherwise proven). The issue is not about "bringing a suppressed story to light" (WP:NOTNEWS) but the encyclopedic documentation of the enduringly notable person and event ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.").  Jim Reed (Talk)  20:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (UPDATED)  Jim Reed (Talk)  16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP* This story is not just a "local story" it has been heard around the country and the world! Millions of people have an opinion on the matter whether for or against and this story help people to learn about the Facts of the case! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC0D:4E39:5B9:EF1D:8AA4:E912 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Even this AfD request is international news right now. Besides that, we're now up to 498,000 Google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoInfiltrator (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←KEEP!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Sneeringer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 April 2013‎
  • STRONG KEEP There are plenty of examples of current criminal events that are on Wikipedia where the conviction(s) have not been secured. This is a big case, because it is more than abortions, it is accusations of violations of laws regarding a hot topic in politics in not only the U.S. and the World. Just because the media is deciding not to cover it does not make it any less relevant. This Artcile should be kept just as other individuals who are on, or about to be on trial for crimes they are accused of. Using social/political beliefs to justify deleting a page on wikipedia is wrong. --Redsoxunixgeek (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This AfD entry is in the news now (e.g., [17] (it starts with Wikipedia, the online dictionary and research web site...) and [18])···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep I'm assuming good faith. I find it difficult to see how this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Extensive, extensive media coverage worldwide. Any issues raised by WP:BIO should be covered by editing the facts of the article. Roodog2k (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now even the proposed deletion itself is making news. [19] PeRshGo (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP! Threatening to delete this page proves even further the media blackout surrounding this horrific news. This story needs to be brought to light! It is not just some local murder news. It is a part of the wider pro-life pro-abortion debate on whether or not abortion needs to be made illegal. This story clearly illustrates the true horrific nature of abortion which everyone is aware of but some of us want to hide from the truth. Pls keep this page open! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimei duru (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 April 2013‎
  • Keep I can't believe this is even being debated. Obviously newsworthy. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As alleged is not yet proven guilty, possibly create stub and lock edits. However, I note that many former employees have confessed already to crimes. This is very newsworthy. Renaissongsman (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I agree with Charlie from Colorado. This incident is just as notable as Newtown, Aurora, George Tiller or many others. The mere fact that some want to delete this shows the incredibly effective blinders many on the left wear.
  • STRONG RENAME to Trial of Kermit Gosnell. Nominating this article for deletion is clearly absurd, this is a very notable national news story so the nominator's second point is asinine. However, the nominator's first point is valid -- there is no conviction of Kermit Gosnell yet no matter how likely that will be. Wikipedia policy is to frame the article around the event, not the person, until (or if) their is a conviction. Recent examples of this are Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman which redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Casey Anthony which redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony. An example of a convicted criminal who has their own article would be Mark David Chapman which does not redirect to Death of John Lennon since the convicted criminal himself is notable. --NINTENDUDE64 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:GNG is met due to the nature of the alleged offenses. WP:CRIMINAL advises: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." However, the "unusual" details of the "execution" of the alleged offenses meets notability criteria. Under no circumstances is deletion warranted here; at best, moving the article to one which is not a bio of Gosnell. However, the current criminal trial has focused on Gosnell. The article could be renamed to something less useful like, "Trial of Women's Medical Society employees," but the attention of the courts and what coverage there has been is clearly on Gosnell, so what point does that serve, except to abide by a Wikipedia guideline while violating its spirit?Basil Fritts (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a minor criminal matter, but an alleged multiple murder that has had significant media coverage and has important policy issues. The editor who nominated this article for deletion should read up on WP:AFD. If an article contains errors, it should be edited to fix the errors, not deleted. Biccat (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly meets notability guidelines. Suggested removal seems like a POV push. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting the topic altogether would be a completely bizarre decision. Just because the media ignore the trial of a suspected serial killer whose case doesn't fit their political agenda should not be a reason to ignore it on Wikipedia. Gosnell is tried for eight homicides, but there are indications that he may have committed hundreds of murders which would make him one of the most prolific serial killers in history. However, since he hasn't been convicted yet, I would agree to change the page to the event instead of the person for the time being.Franklludwig (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting that Wiki wants this story suppressed, probably for the same reason the media wants it suppressed: because a story about a monster abortionist might give cover to pro-choicers. Sad, really.RMc (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the nominator, only one other person made an argument in support of deleting the article, so I don't track with what you're saying. This clearly meets WP:GNG, even if the article name must change. In addition, this article clearly falls under WP:SNOW, as there is nothing more to gain from this conversation. Someone should close this AfD. Roodog2k (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why exactly would hiding the results of banning abortion and poor regulation be appropriate? This is a very important case. If you want to replace it with discussion of the court trial or his clinic, that would be appropriate, but to scrub the history from wikipedia seems barbarous. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concensus seems clear that this article should be kept in some form. I am assuming good faith when I say that the nominator for this AfD had the best intentions. Read carefully into what I am saying when I say "assuming good faith." Personal feelings aside, I don't believe that the nom's argument holds any water. Roodog2k (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's be nice to think that but when the story broke out YEARS ago [20], it got plenty of notability. However this is the trial phase right now where the jury decision may come out. The standard can apply to ANYONE who is under trial. Marc Peterson got craploads of coverage because of Greta on Fox News and yet he was ACCUSED during the entire coverage. This person coming out of inactivity of editing comes out to request an AfD on a controversial case? I know that it's unfair to say that we shouldn't be biased against inactive editors but when the case is controversial and the AfD deletion request comes shortly after it starts to become a bit more covered especially by Jake Tapper (notability there!), people gets some ideas to down play the issue.
  • So my vote is a Keep and I want this AfD failed request to be noted on record to prevent it from being deleted again in the future ViriiK (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have no doubt that the fanatical ultrareligionist anti-abortion retards are having very noisy orgasms over the existence of this piece, but the subject meets GNG. It's a POV catastrophe, of course, and needs to be fixed by somebody who understands what the fuck Wikipedia is actually about. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foley & Lardner

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

This article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foley & Lardner. In the six years since, it still has yet to have a verifiable reliable source, even though our standards have risen. It also refers to various living people, which references must be from verifiable reliable sources. I think it is high time we revisit that discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's unfortunate that sources haven't yet been added, but this is still the oldest law firm in Wisconsin and one of the largest in the United States. The firm is the subject of a 1992 book published by the State Historical Society of Wisconsin[21] (reviewed in the UK journal Business History here: [22]). There is voluminous news coverage. One particularly useful potential source would be a 1970 front-page feature in the Milwaukee Journal that discusses the firm's history in some detail; unfortunately, as luck would have it, the first page of the paper is missing from the Google News copy.[23] I do agree that parts of the current version of the article are somewhat promotional, but that can be cleaned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. 14:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 14:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. I've edited the article a bit, deleted a paragraph of unreferenced gush about some client satisfaction survey, and tagged the long section of former members as unreferenced. It could probably be removed as well without loss; a lot of it reads like clutching at straws for an AfD discussion. (Antonin Scalia allegedly worked there one summer.) But if this business has had a book written about it by a state historical society because it's been around since the 1840s.... that's the sort of thing that does make a business notable. The article in its current state makes hardly any case for notability, but the underlying subject appears to be. Somebody with access to a copy of that book might be able to turn this into an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organization has noteworthy accomplishments, notable membership, and significant secondary source coverage, and in addition, good deal of history since founding in 1842, great potential for educational and encyclopedic resource for students, readers, and editors alike. — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foley&Lardner is the oldest law firm in Wisconsin and its founders are notable. I agree with Arxiloxos the sources are there and can be added to the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kaldari (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MK style in Hong Kong (MK文化)

edit
MK style in Hong Kong (MK文化) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subculture phenomena Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to delete or redirect, but given the lack of agreement on any redirect target, I am just deleting it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. (7) Basic Education Middle School, Mandalay

edit
No. (7) Basic Education Middle School, Mandalay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no significant coverage found via Google, content is unverifiable. I couldn't even find reliable sources verifying the school's existence (though there are sufficiently many unreliable sources to convince me it's not a hoax). Since it's not a high school, it shouldn't fall under the automatic notability of high schools. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests redirecting to the "lowest level locality", which in this case would presumably be Chanayethazan Township, but the target article contains no relevant information and itself doesn't show significant coverage in reliable sources. Thus I don't think a redirect would be helpful. Huon (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I did some research myself, and all I could really find was an old facebook event, an inactive Yahoo Group, and what appears to be a dead website link for the school itself. I personally believe the school "may have" existed at one time, however I was unable to find any solid evidence or coverage to verify that this was indeed the case. Stubbleboy 18:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The school does exist. Not many internet sources don't mean that the school doesn't exist. The only reason you guys could find sources online is that Myanmar just opened internet access recently. Not many news media or publication about Myanmar are online.[1] To be honest, I am alumni of the school and I am studying abroad now. Here is the facebook page of the school. https://www.facebook.com/bems7mandalay?ref=ts&fref=ts There is a closed facebook group also. All of them are managed by school alumni. As you can see in the event flow of the school facebook page, they recently held Paying Homage Ceremony on 23.12.2012. You could also check the photos posted on the facebook page. Photos of teachers, students, school buildings, ceremony, paying homage events, etc. Hope these photos and facebook flow convince you that it is a real school. If you have any questions about sources, let me know. I will pass the message to the facebook group/page admin. Thanks. Petermdy001 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep in mind that sources about this school may be difficult to find due to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect High Schools are notable per longstanding precedent, middle schools and lower virtually never are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mandalay#Education, which is clearly the correct place to redirect to, as the previous redirect locations are way too generic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hesitate to redirect to Mandalay only because mention in the article would not be suitable and no sub-article exists. When a sub-article is made it can be made into a redirect. Delete under WP:OUTCOMES. Mkdwtalk 07:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Whether or not the school once existed or currently exists (present or past tense) is not relevant. Being able to find information on the school has a two-fold hindrance each contained in WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Because of non-native English used and sketchy Internet access in Mandalay, the article looks incomplete. The article could be cleaned up with help form a native English speaking editor since this is in an English speaking section of Wikipedia. The article does not cite references within the text, doing so would help support the validity of the article. For example, there must be a newspaper or magazine article somewhere that supports the phrase "For a long time this place is the Kaung Hua Chinese Temple. But at the 1st April of 1965, the government make public place and open as a government middle school naming No (7), Basic Education Middle School, Mandalay {B.E.MS (7), Mandalay}." Schools fall under the WP:NCORP policy when determining GNG. The policy states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." When sources are listed, they may well be in a non-English speaking newspaper or magazine and that needs to be accepted in order to avoid systemic bias WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and being an exclusionist. Wordsword1 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence structure used actually seems to be saying that No. 7 is a school that runs from first grade to ninth grade (from primary through middle school, and actually what would be the beginning of high school in the US). So it is not just a middle school.
I have been trying to find out more about the education system in Myanmar. I found some general information in The Straits Times, an English language paper covering Myanmar and Singapore. It seems that University is good in Mandalay; however, years of brutal dictatorship crushed preparatory education. I have been unable to find out at what grade one graduates in Myanmar (that is are there another 3 years after grade 9 as n the US. All of that information would be helpful in the article.
An article dated March 6, 2013 indicated that the new government is trying to serve the people more, so the military was given "US$100 million less than the previous year but (it is) still likely to dwarf the money available for the crumbling education and health care systems in the nation of 60 million people."[2] So there is potential of notability to a school being funded by the Myanmar government, but the article needs more information to achieve that level.
  • Redirect per longstanding consensus for run-of-the-mill elementary schools. It's pretty embarrassing to have "principal" misspelled in an education-related article, by the way, I'm leaving it as an illustration of how vapid this article (inevitably) is. (Of course, it will be corrected anyway five seconds after I mention this...) Carrite (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought Carrite: The originator of the article is apparently a non-Native English speaker or writer; so, we/you need to give him some slack. Go ahead and edit the language errors to clean up the article when you have time. That is no problem. I think the originator would probably appreciate your effort. Wordsword1 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's snarky, sure, but if you're gonna be doing education articles on English WP, basic spelling competence is required. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also like to point out that the article title has several problems with it and that a redirect would be a good nomination for a very unlikely search title considering the brackets and punctuation, rather than "Basic Education Middle School, Mandalay". Mkdwtalk 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Burma
  2. ^ "Myanmar military handed $3 billion budget, less than previous year". News paper. The Straits Times. Retrieved 13 April 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_April_12&oldid=1142633268"