Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonka

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

Band fails WP:NBAND. Completely unsourced, WP:NOT#OR in its entirely. LlamaAl (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is deleted, Bonka (video game) should be moved in its place. JIP | Talk 06:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 February 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) 22:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains plenty of claims to notability and would merit inclusion if they could be sourced, but I wasn't able to find any reliable info except this brief mention. Of course, if I could read Spanish I might have had better luck. In general the whole area of Tropipop needs more sourcing. squibix (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was speedily deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia as irrelevant, promotional and copyvio. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:38, 23 February 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 06:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anugama

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

No albums have charted, no references to suggest notability. Fails WP:ARTIST JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not finding much in-depth coverage online for this muscician; Allmusic has a biography and brief reviews of four of his albums. I'm also seeing some mentions on his website that suggest coverage in New Age music magazines (e.g., New Age Voice). Gong show 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 19 February 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) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- notable: an article on a well known new age artist.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable why have none of his albums charted, why are there no references? JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't find anything about this artists albums, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. I think conclusive info needs to be found on those albums before a definitive conclusion can be reached.31.68.204.143 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I prefer this over the reggaeton-huh-huh-huh artist du jour, I can't seem to find anything that could possibly get it past WP:GNG, let alone WP:MUSICBIO. I also searched for sources in German, to no avail. I will note that the de.wiki version of this article has no sources whatsoever, which is rather odd for our German cousins. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, doesn't pass our music guidelines, which is actually kinda surprising for someone supposedly so prolific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-famous New Age artist (in Europe). Undiscussed notability. Article to improve. See: Amazon, Biography, Itunes, Fjordstone, Discography, Youtube, de.Wp--Knight of Infinity (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Release of material does not help establish notability. Provide links to reviews, interviews, accolades, etc. I couldn't find any. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I agree with the above.--Soroboro (talk) 01:27, 27 February 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. Although the arguments for retaining this page are not overly convincing they do outweigh the argument for deletion. J04n(talk page) 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East of Chicago Pizza

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

Google search shows no secondary sources that would raise this article to reach the standards for inclusion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover's is specifically listed as a source where notability can be derived. 2 other 3rd party sources were just added to show that it is notable in the business community. Leoberacai (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 February 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) 22:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep - Appears likely to meet WP:N. Many sources for this company are paywalled, and some are short articles. However, this restaurant chain has received coverage in the Associated Press, and many articles are available: Examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 22 February 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 SOFT DELETE. Because of low community participation in this discussion treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 12:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Energy Services

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

non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 February 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) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only passing mentions in major sources. I'd change my mind if anyone can find something more substantial. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 26 February 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 06:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel-X

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: does not cite reliable secondary sources, and I cannot find any, that support notability. Also see related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vesselplasty. Scray (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet well established in the field. Alternatively, if the article Vesselplasty is kept, this title could be redirected there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. The article on Vesselplasty is sufficient, although I am so concerned aboutthe promotional aspects that I recommend we do not make a redirect from this trade name. From famous trade names, yes we certainly make a redirect, but this one is not in that category. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 27 February 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 06:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenjiro Ogino

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails specific notability guidelines p b p 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not played in a professional league, and has not been the subject of enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Cavarrone (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soccerway shows only unused sub appearances, so a NFOOTY failure. As he has apparently not played anywhere professionally, nor won any significant awards, nor represented Japan internationally, also a GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 25 February 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) 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Ella

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBOOK. The only reliable source that even mentions it is School Library Journal which has a short paragraph on it here (only summarizes the plot) and another paragraph here (plot summary and very brief commentary). Atlantima (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Vao Tv1 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete definitely the article in its current state does nothing to indicate notability, and I would say delete, but if the person providing the commentary in the link provided by User:Atlantima is notable, then there might be something to the article, but I still don't really think so.^King Jakob _C2 23:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original version of the article indicated that it is being adapted to an ABC Family movie, although it didn't even mention that it was a book at all, and I didn't find any sources to back up the movie adaptation (hence, why I edited the article to only mention the book). If the movie becomes notable (which I doubt it will), then the article may be worth creating but not until then. King Jakob: I don't think that the notability of reviewers can confer notability to things they review. --Atlantima (talk) 03:18, 21 February 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 06:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Publisher Book Award

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2007, re notability since 2009, seemingly nobody can find any sources to address this. The bulk of ghits seem to be from the body which awards it or sources asssociated with recipients. I haven't found any clearly independent and reliable indication of its notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources to expand/insert on this article on a notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you have such sources or what do you mean? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award has been around for about 17 years, but I was ultimately unable to find anything that specifically shows that it's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. There are passing mentions of it in various places where they say that such and such was nominated, but there really isn't anything about the award itself. The award ceremony/group needs to have been the focus of independent RS and that just doesn't seem to be out there. It's possible that there are sources that aren't on the web, but until someone can show that they do exist I'll have to vote delete. Long running does not mean notable. It just means that there was more time for it to gain coverage. I saw a few people talking about how great the awards are, but never in a RS and always by people who either received an award or were in the running for one.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 22 February 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 Descent (video game). If anyone wants to merge any of the information into Descent (video game) the history will remain. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descent 4

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

Speculations and rumors on a project that never took off Lyverbe (talk) 20:31, 20 February 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) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. It does seem to have died out as a project, since there's been no new info on it for a few years now. And it's a shame. Delete without prejudice, in case it gets revived. The Moose is loose! 08:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: It's difficult to justify having a standalone article for a game that's been vaporware for years. Moreover, the sources describing the proposed game are either Interplay press releases or are news stories based on the contents of these releases. However, it may be useful to retain Descent 4 as a redirect because the topic appears to still be generating significant interest and is likely being used fairly often as a search term (e.g. the article was viewed 1695 times last month). A couple potential redirect destinations exist, both of which already contain some information about the proposed game: Descent (video game)#Related titles or Red Faction#Red Faction and Descent 4. I also have no prejudice against the article's future recreation if the game is revived. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Descent (video game), per WP:CRYSTAL, since there is no screenshots and cover, it appears the franchise of the game has been dead for years since Duke Nukem Forever came out after 15 years of development. JJ98 (Talk) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even if the game is vaporware, it was indeed a game planned to follow a popular game franchise. Duke Nukem Forever had an article for years, long before it was miraculously released. So the question shouldn't be "do we keep this because the project is dead or alive" but "how do we properly document that this game was in planning stages and is now abandoned". The article should be reworded to reflect known facts (which are sourced from articles published at the time), not casually deleted because it seems unnecessary. --Stux (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia works with facts and there are no facts at all about Descent 4. Descent 2 is in my top 3 favorite games of all times and I certainly hope Descent 4 will one day become a reality, but we can't keep "What if..." articles on Wikipedia. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, from reading through the talk page, that there is question regarding the legitimacy of some of the sources behind some of the rumors, but does that mean that the company never planned a Decent 4 release and never announced a cancellation of the project? And that it never planned to revive (and announce such revival) of said game? I can understand deleting the article if everything said therein is pure fabrication and an elaborate hoax by a multitude of actors, but such a thing seems highly unlikely. I think the adequate thing to do is remove unsourced and/or unambiguously unencyclopedic material and present the information that is known and can be corroborated. If there's only a paragraph or two left that's fine, but the topic and the article deserve due diligence. If, in the end, the material ends up being a byline in a redirected article, so be it. But proper work must be done instead of just blindly deleting it. --Stux (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do agree that Descent 4 deserves a mention simply because Interplay (once upon a time) officially announced the game as a sequel to a popular franchise. Where I don't agree is that to "properly document that this game was in planning stages and is now abandoned" requires that it be the subject of a standalone article. Descent (video game)#Related titles already devotes a paragraph to documenting this fact (and there's still room to expand it further and provide additional supporting citations). That Interplay had proposed to create the game will continue to be documented somewhere on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this AfD - but the operative question is whether this documentation needs to be the subject of its own article. In light of the game's non-existence and the scanty nature of reliable sources aside from that which is based upon company press releases, I do not believe that such an article is warranted. A redirect would be quite appropriate though. Moreover, properly cited bits and pieces from this article can always be incorporated into the relevant discussion in Descent (video game). --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:32, 23 February 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 GoAir. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Air

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

This is a disambiguation page with only one blue link that actually belongs on the page, GoAir. Of the remaining topics, articles do not exist for Fly Go-Air or Go Air (USA), and there is no indication that Go! (airline) is known as "Go Air". There is also a footnote leading to an external link on the page, despite such links being expressly forbidden on disambiguation pages, which only disambiguate Wikipedia, not the entire internet. I would delete this article and redirect the title to the only matching blue link, GoAir. bd2412 T 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I type <"Go Air"> at Google the second result I get is for Go!, the Hawaiian airline. And I note that there is already a dab hatnote at Go Air, so I must not be the only one who perceives the potential confusion. I'm also concerned that the recent prod deletion of Fly Go-Air (which I didn't see before it happened) may have been contrary to our usual criteria, since this appears to have been a scheduled airline that actually flew, albeit only once,[11][12] and I have been considering whether to request undeletion of that one. I agree that the reference to Go/Royal American isn't currently in accordance with normal dab standards, although it might be noted that this was an actual scheduled airline[13][14] and might eventually get a page here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Google's formulation of a single return carries any weight on this question at all. The fact remains that it is not a title match, and there is no evidence that people generally refer to "Go!" as "Go Air". As to other airlines, if they meet the guidelines for inclusion and an article can be crafted with appropriate references, that is a different matter. bd2412 T 13:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GoAir (as it was originally). Hatnote there can point to Go! (airline). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GoAir with its existing hatnote which links to the Hawaii airline. PamD 13:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GoAir There is already an existing hatnote there, all other links are red currently. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GoAir The other disambiguation mention is relatively unrelated and should if anything be listed at Go. Mkdw ^talk 20:47, 25 February 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 07:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality issue of The Simpsons

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

Full of original research, cites numerous non-reliable sources (many instances of message board posters and personal blogs), has no chance of ever being reliably sourced. The subject is also of questionable notability and is handled in it's appropriate context with much better sourcing within The Simpsons article. MichiganCharms (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons, I have to agree with this. The whole "Simpsons starting to suck after the ninth season"-thing can be adequately summarized in four paragraphs or so. It is already covered here, here, and here. Theleftorium ^(talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see that several people have given an article-length treatment of this topic the old college try, and I commend them for the effort. However, (a) this is a hodgepodge of original research, weasel words, and the use of forum posts and blogs as sources, (b) any full-length treatment of this topic is impossible to accomplish in an encyclopedic manner, and (c) the subject matter of the show's alleged decline or non-decline is covered more than adequately in the featured article The Simpsons. Here's the gist of this topic: Some people say The Simpsons has declined. Some say it hasn't. Both sides of the debate have various arguments about what's wrong with the show or what's not wrong with it, and why that is. Some of those viewpoints come from notable published commentators, but most come from fan forums and blogs. One more point: All TV series that run more than one season have some fans who disagree with the show's direction. So you could just as well have an article like "Quality issue of Doctor Who" or "Quality issue of How I Met Your Mother", right? szyslak (t) 01:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a very well-documented topic, and as I have already said in various forums, one which has dominated the public discourse surrounding The Simpsons for the past 15 years or so. In regard to Syzlak's point, "So you could just as well have an article like "Quality issue of Doctor Who" or "Quality issue of How I Met Your Mother", right?", well... short answer, yes. This seems to be a common thread that runs through many-a-series. Especially the longer-running ones. Maybe quality-issue of ___" was never the right title (I was always hesitant about that). While history articles are more about development and cancellations and promotions and releases etc., this brand of article would go into the history of the show's quality. Not about all the crap that happens around a show. Just the show itself. (But to be fair, at least in my experience, I havent found any issue regarding the quality dip in a show more talked about than this one). Just like there are many different American history articles - demographic, military, woman's, economic etc., these two articles would then show different 'sides' to the history of the shows, one the facade, and the other, the behind the scenes. By the way, I still think the article needs to be restructured to becoming wholly chronological. But I was too busy wrapping my head around the neutrality and notability of it that I haven't gotten around to completely fixing the scope and order of sections just yet. But, yeah, the topic seems sounds, and the notability is definitely there. If worst comes to worst, we can always salvage a lot of this information for a Critical reception of the Simpsons article, which was previously discussed somewhere.

MichiganCharms, what do you mean by "has no chance of ever being reliably sourced" (also, all the sources in this section in The Simpsons article were carries over to here so I'm not sure what you mean by that.)? I appreciate you bringing those articles to light. Many of those sources could be used to great affect here. I have to say that while the information is great, it doesn't really provide enough of a well-rounded analysis of the issues surrounding the dip in quality (which didn't just occur at a point in time which everything before being good and everything after being shit). I really see value in such an article as this, despite the idea still not being fully formed. Also, this isn't really a '"Simpsons starting to suck after the ninth season"-thing' thing at all. In fact, in the other articles, I think generalisations and simplifications have been used as the result of limited space. This article (at least should) comment on and analyse the dynamic shifts in the show, and how those have been percieved quality-wise, plus a series of (however dubious) defenses for the quality.--Coin945 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simply put, I don't believe that such an article can ever meet Wikipedia's standards because at it's very core it relies on a.) original research, b.) synthesis and c.) the use of non-reliable sources. Look, I've been a poster on NoHomers... I shudder to think my postings might ever be used as a source on what it supposed to be an encyclopedia. There is only so much ink that has been spilled by reliable, published sources on this topic and the subject, no matter how interesting or important you or I personally find it, only warrants as much coverage here as those sources allow for. Perhaps consider moving the article to user space or reworking it as a blogpost somewhere. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a hodgepodge of original, non-notable dead-horse beating, which is practically a poster child for "things that don't belong on Wikipedia." As noted above, everything that really needs to be noted on the topic can comfortably fit in a paragraph or so in the main Simpsons article. Commenting on and analysing the dynamic shifts in the show are original work. That may be fine for some other website. It has no place here. — Shmuel (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how this is original research. I have made no conclusions without evidence. I have merely collected all the sources which discuss this topic together in the one place. Instances where I may have written assumptions go back to what I said on the talk page - this is work in progress and so sometimes I will read something that will remind me of something I read in a reliable source, or something that I think is true enough that there will be reliable sources on the notion further into my research (I make judgement calls on those ones) - and then I will temporarily add draft information to later be replaced by reliable source in due course. That doesn't mean that the sources don't exist. I think that on the whole, this is a very well sourced, comprehensive, and relatively neutral (I'll still try to work on that in the near future) article, on a very notable issue in regard to The Simpsons.--Coin945 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your own defenses of the article highlight one of the problems with it. "This article (at least should) comment on and analyse the dynamic shifts in the show, and how those have been percieved quality-wise, plus a series of (however dubious) defenses for the quality." "I have made no conclusions without evidence." Commentary, analysis, and the drawing of conclusions all go outside the boundaries of Wikipedia. One type of original research relevant here is called synthesis. I would suggest you read the guidelines for that. — Shmuel (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, by 'dubious', I didn't mean in unreliable sources. I meant however flawed the argument itself is (sorry I should have been clearer on that). For example, a lot of the show's staff may argue that the show is much better than it ever was (which I don't think they do, but it is a hypothetical after all), and even if it seems like a dubious argument, if it is widely held, and in many reliable sources, then it deserves a place in the article. Secondly, I never said I would be doing any of the analysing. All I have done is placed a bunch of other poeple's analysing into one place. Thirdly, there is no original research involved in this. I said "I have made no conclusions without evidence", in the context of: if i add 10 sources that say critics said the show was obsolete, in a variety of different ways, I am able to come to the conclusion that "Many critics say the show is now obsolete", or something like that. That's not original research. That's (as i said) drawing conclusions. The only thing I could be accused of is having a few less-than-totally-notable sources here and there, which is only natural for a draft article. It has a few flaws, I'm not denying that, and they are yet to be ironed out. I don't think outright deletion is the solution though.--Coin945 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found this article by searching for letterboxd, a social networking site, and found it was being used as a source for this mess. I defer to User:Gene93k's familiarity with the adequate coverage of this topic in the main article and the History of ... article. I also feel that the title is clumsy and unworthy of redirecting anywhere. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. I admire the effect, but this is not the kind of thing that belongs here. Gran² 22:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been thinking a lot about the existence of this article and while I admire the effort, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. The best analogue I can think of, is that we don't have an article comparing Star Wars's original trilogy to the prequel trilogy - even though it is a wide spread phenomenon on the internet. Basically, the internet is filled with people complaining about everything. These days it is so easy to set up a blog and then your opinion would be there forever. Not surprisingly, people also had opinions in the 1990s, they are just not easy to see anymore. If you go on SNPP.com, you can see plenty of people from the 1990s complaining about the poor writing of episodes, people now call classic. The point is that it is almost impossible to find some sort of "truth", because it is a matter of opinion and all you can do is synthesise several people's opinions. I would much rather read about how The Simpsons shifted in tone and how the characters developed over the years. --Maitch (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, i wanted to make the point that just because there are no other similar articles, that does not mean that this article shouldn't exist. If you followed that religiously, no new type of article (disambiguation/glossary/critical reception/criticism etc.) could have ever be created because nothing else existed like it at the time. If memory serves, I believe the Wikipedia policy is "Other stuff exists/Other stuff doesn't exist". In fcat, I applaud anyone who creates said article for Star Wars in particular. Well, maybe not just comparing the two, but more similar to what you said at the end of your comment (which I'll get to in a moment) - analysing how the show has "shifted in tone and how the characters developed over the years". I'd like to see that for Doctor Who especially. In fact - side pint - I seriously think there should be two different articles for the original 1963 show and the 2005 reboot - but let's just leave that as an aside for now. I never created this article to find some kind of truth. I knew there was a huge discussion over whether The Simpsons is as good as it once was - or if people overstated the golden era - or when the golden era ended...and all that stuff, and I knew that such a dynamic show as The Simpsons obviously had a whole heap of factors involved. So, in short, my aim was to collect all the information I could find on such a topic and try to present it in a cohesive and comprehensive fashion. It has kinda turned into a "The Simpsons vs. Zombie Simpsons" type article, but in essence, what I was trying to do was create an article that does as you suggest - "how The Simpsons shifted in tone and how the characters developed over the years". An article about how the show has adapted and changed over the years and how that has been perceived by the critics. For example, the zaniness of the show was originally lauded by many (Marge vs. the Monorail is widely considered one of their greatest episodes ever along with Last Exist to Springfield, despite its magical realismness). But when it became coupled with things like weak satire and off characterizations, only then was the whole package seen as bad. So I attempted to document this whole monster of a show, with an extremely complicated history, and for what it's worth, I think I did an okay job. If we could turn the article into something more along the lines of what you have suggested, I'm all for it. And I think this sort of article (if pulled off right) would be a very valuable and important thing across the board for different media. Almost always you read little snippets of opinion on this topic, but rarely, if ever, do you see a full, well written, and neutral examination of how the quality of a show has changed throughout its history, and the various factors behind it. I do think it is a brilliant idea in theory, but perhaps like communism it wasn't pulled off quite right the first time round.--Coin945 (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there are two things to discuss here. First, does an article like this even belong in an encyclopedia? I don't believe so. It will end up being a synthesis of people opinions and I don't think you can present an objective "truth" by metioning some people's pro and against arguments and line them up against each other. Second, you could choose to write on the writing itself without passing judgement on "quality". Each showrunner changed the tone and characterization of the characters, most likely to try and not repeat what already has been done. However, this is also quite difficult, because you need credible sources. I did some of that when I wrote the History of The Simpsons, but ended up cutting a lot of it out, to keep the balance. --Maitch (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, after extending the criticism of declining quality section of the The Simpsons (an edit which I later reverted), I did say that I thoguht as such a prolific show, The Simpsons (probably more than most other TV shows) deserved fork articles for almost every one if that articles' rather slim sections: The Simpsons merchandise (sooo much to talk about there), Writing on The Simpsons (as you say - extremely telling), Voice acting on The Simpsons (I'm personally very intrigued to find out more about this one), Animation of The Simpsons (it has changed dramatically over the years and Klasky Csupo had a big kerfuffle over it in the early days), Themes in The Simpsons (which would then house the media, politics, and religion articles along with others), Influence and legacy of The Simpsons (how this section is summed up in two measly paragraphs I'll never know), Critical reception of The Simpsons (out of any series surely this one has the most to talk about) etc, which would allow us to objectively explore each of these topics in turn, rather than creating the big convoluted mismatch that many have argued this article is (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them). As you said, and as I have said in the past, I think a lot of the discussion has been removed from these articles for space reasons, and I think that is a massive shame because there is so much to talk about, and I think all these different topics need their own articles. Perhaps that is the solution. If Shakespeare can have 20,000 [I'm being hyperbolous :D] fork articles, why can't The Simpsons? The basic information for many of those articles is essentially already here. Would you be willing to help me in breaking this article apart and creating many interesting, insightful, and generally awesome subarticles of The Simpsons with the useable information here plus other research?--Coin945 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a couple of discussions on this article scattered around the internet. I just thought I'd provide links to them so anyone who wants to take a peak has the opportunity to. site 1, site 2, site 3, site 4

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports betting systems

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

No sources, pointless article. DegenFarang (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AFD was never properly formatted or listed. I have added it to the log on 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Part of a series of bad faith AFDs by DegenFarang. Additionally, the nature of the lack of sources in the current state does not warrant deletion. Deletion should always be the final step in dealing with articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryulong. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 23:58, 22 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-Chunk Casino

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

Not notable. No sources. DegenFarang (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to the Ho Chunk article. There are citations refering to the casino in the Ho Chunk article including the various locations the casino is located-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I support the re-direct. DegenFarang (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout slap the above editor! Having an article without a large number of citations is not a reason to delete. Exactly why is this casino not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I just added information and citation to the Ho-Chunk article about the Beloit Common Council selling additional land to the Ho-Chunk Nation for a proposed casino. I would support keeping the Ho-Chunk Casino if someone would rewrite the article with citations and keeping the promotional/advertising wording out of it. It appears the Ho-Chunk Casino is one of Wisconsin's major industries and therefore notable. One has to take account the vote of the Beloit Comon Council to sell addtional lands to the Ho-Chunks for a proposed casino-Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plentiful sources are available to satisfy GNG ([15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]), which nom probably didn't bother to look for because this is a bad-faith nom borne out of his unrelated dispute with the article's creator. Toohool (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AFD was never properly listed. I have added it to the log on 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wisconsin Dells casino claims to have over 2200 slot machines alone.[27] There appear to be six current locations, five of which aren't mentioned for some reason. Anyway, there are newspaper stories dating back to the 1990s. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , this article is one of a series of bad faith nominations by a indef blocked editor. [28] ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 00:00, 23 February 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. The nominator actually failed to provide an argument for deletion and questionable notability has been resolved with the addition of reliable sources here, numerous from just today at Google News, so it obviously passes requirements. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Gaming Association

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

No sources, likely created by the source of the article or their associates. DegenFarang (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout slap the above editor! This is the major gaming industry association in the US. Having an article without a large number of citations is not a reason to delete. Neither is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Ludicrous hounding nomination. 146 google news mentions today. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2005 and Vegaswikian above. Rray (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we stubify the article and remove all of the spam, I would be willing to change my vote to Keep. DegenFarang (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider editing and improving articles before sending them to Afd. Generally speaking, if an article can be improved, it isn't eligible for deletion. Rray (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Keep Nom is no longer arguing for deletion. Toohool (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate was never properly listed on the log. I have put it onto the current AFD log at 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 20 February 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. There are no arguments for deletion other than the nomination, the posibility of a redirect or merge can be discussed on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know

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

Unreferenced since creation; no Ghits that support notability per WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found mention of the book in connection with its author in The Boston Globe, but it seems short of a review for purposes of the WP:NBOOK criteria. I also found mention of it in The New York Times (and republished in the Chicago Tribune) in connection with the book's subject, but reference to the author is only a footnote at the bottom of the article. I'm leaning redirect, but not sure if it should point to the author or the subject. Location (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to William_Rivers_Pitt#Bibliography - I found the same results too, mainly footnotes as well as some brief mentions here, here, here and here. I haven't found reviews from news sources but there are two, here (from Executive Intelligence Review) and here (mindshiftinstitute.org). Although Scott Ritter contributed the book, it seems William Pitt is credited as the main author so redirecting may be a good option. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. I think I agree with you on the direction of the redirect. Incidentally, I recently asked about the reliability of EIR on WP:RSN. It might be acceptable for an opinion on the book, but its bias and lack of reliability lead me to think that it is an insufficient basis for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This brief book is an interview of U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who is an exceptionally important figure in the history of opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, despite his unrelated personal legal problems. I oppose a redirect to William Rivers Pitt, because he was the interviewer, and the book's importance comes entirely from what Scott Ritter had to say. This anti-war book was published at the time that war hysteria in the United States was at a fever pitch, and Scott Ritter was being widely ridiculed by "reliable sources", so in the spirit of ignoring all rules, I would recommend disregarding the lack of in-depth reviews at the time of publication. Worthy of note is that, in my opinion, Ritter's analysis has proven to be true, and those who criticized him are discredited. History will judge. Although I am not arguing that this is an "academic book" in the normal sense of that term, it has proven to be an important source for historians writing the history of the Iraq war debacle. The section of WP:NBOOKS on academic books says that "common sense should prevail" and that one factor determining notability is "how widely the book is cited". As the history of that war has been written in the past decade, this book has been an important subject of study. It inspired a chapter in War on Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Invasion of Iraq But Your Government Wouldn't Tell You, 2008, and is cited in Bring 'em On: Media And Politics In The Iraq War, 2005, Bush's Wars, 2011, From "9-11" to the "Iraq War 2003": International Law in a Age of Complexity, 2003, The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future, 2007, Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Understanding the News in the 'War on Terror', 2008, Haunted Victory: The American Crusade to Destroy Saddam and Impose Democracy on Iraq, 2012, Imperial Designs: Neo Conservatism in the New Pax Americana, 2004, The Road to War: Manufacturing Public Opinion in Support of U. S. Foreign Policy Goals, 2008, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, 2007, War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, 2004, Economy, Difference, Empire: Social Ethics for Social Justice, 2010. I see at least twenty other books that cite this book. This book is an exceptionally important and notable source document studied by many historians working in this field, and accordingly this article should be kept and expanded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, regardless of my personal opinion regarding this book, the subject appears to pass WP:BKCRIT; it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources articles, which if taken in total maybe considered significant coverage. The book has also been used as a reliable source by multiple published sources. This means that the subject passes criterias 1 & 3 of BKCRIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 21 February 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. Sock infected AFD with some weak rationales for keeping as well, no prejudice for relisting. Secret ^account 07:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sheppard

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

Reality TV contestants are generally not notable. 96.224.44.119 16:34, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 168.94.245.2 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User is now blocked. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.117.230 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never even won the show anyway. 206.71.242.249 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was posted to the article talk page, but it belongs here: Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Wikipedia for its content. He regularly come up in discussions on"Survivor" game play.

This person is a part of Survivor lore, both past and (as of this week) present. He has been chosen by Survivor executives to play as a "Favorite". In addition, a book about him was released this week. Mr. Sheppard also participates in many charity events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.26.15 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That book about him was also cowritten by him, so can hardly be considered an independent source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from convinced of the subject's notability, but must point out to the nominator and those giving "per nom" and "per above" opinions that this discussion is about Phillip Sheppard in particular, not about reality TV contestants in general. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep, now appearing on multiple seasons of a reality show, so there would be no single redirect target, and the article is well sourced. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All the other Survivor contestants have a page, also all these IP accounts are SPA's JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. Only ones that were notable for some other reason like Lisa Whelchel (she was an actress) or winners for the most part, have pages. –BuickCentury Driver 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frietjes plus he is also a United States Army veteran and the book co-written or not has been promoted by third parties such as on Rob Cesternino's podcast and yes Cesternino is third party because the book is a separate project from Survivor. DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. 24.46.86.58 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the only edits made by your IP Adress since January 1st, 2007 (more than six years) is to edit this and the AfD discussion for Francesca Hogi. The WP:DUCK test suggsts that you are IP-hopping to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this could be the same user. WHOIS info shows 168.94.245.2 is from Minnesota and 206.71.242.249 is from Kansas while nominator is from New York. –BuickCentury Driver 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to start assuming bad faith, but there are proxies as well as the small but still technical possibility that the IPs either know each other and of this sitation or that it could even be the same person (for example, someone on a business trip from one state to the next). I know it's a small possibility, but it's not impossible. It's especially interesting that there is a large amount of IPs interested in this situation, at least a number of which have very few otherwise edits in their contribution histories. The WHOIS may say one thing but the duck test suggests mad quacking.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and all sources are about the show and nothing else. 2604:2D00:5:0:216:3EFF:FEF2:5BEC (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! The book is seperate from the show. Therefore, your "reasoning" is a failure. Maybe you could actually try reading the article next time. Concensus is best reached when contributors actually assess the sitation properly which includes looking at everything presented, this isn't a voting circus.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, he had no pre-show notability, I really didn't know he appeared on Survivor and didn't watched on his Redemption Island season. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he does have the book, not just Survivor and co-written or not, the book has been "promoted" by third parties.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder to those not reading properly that the book is seperate from the show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a sockpuppet or hasn't read the article properly. If you continue to play the person rather than the ball you risk having your arguments in favour of the article ignored. If you think that the book contributes to notability then you need to provide evidence that it has received independant coverage in reliable sources, such as reviews in major newspapers, rather than just link to an apparently self-published web site that republishes a press release about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming that I'm assuming these things. The person I suggested hadn't read the article properly specifically said that all sources were about the show and nothing else when that is blatantly wrong, regardless of how notable the book is, because the book is seperate from the show. By replying to me, you are the one going off on an unnecessary tangent, not me. Looks like you could take your own advice at playing the ball not the person, because if you don't, people might think you are being a hypocrite instead of someone actually keeping relevant to the discussion.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you advice about how you can best achieve what you want, i.e. to get the article kept. If you don't want to accept such help then that's your prerogative, but please decline the offer without using words such as "hypocrite". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are assuming that I want the article kept. I honestly couldn't care less. What I actually care about is that people actually follow what Wikipedia stands for which includes not votestaking, actually reading what is front of them and so forth. You didn't give me help, because what you said doesn't apply to me, even if it applies to you.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you want this kept is not an assumption, because you preceded a comment above with a bolded "Keep". You might like to note that I am the one who prevented speedy deletion of this article, who reverted an attempt at redirection without consensus, and who pointed out the logical flaw in the deletion rationale presented by the nominator of this discussion, so treating me as some sort of enemy is pretty obviously counterproductive to your cause. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded keep because I care about Wikipedia's policies being followed. I'm not treating you as an enemy, I'm treating you as someone who doesn't get it. Stop assuming, you don't know my true cause obviously.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book and subject fails notability miserably. Sporty213 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll gladly take the opportunity to say that Foac's post falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Have a nice day. --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foac's behavior is suspiciously sismilar to that of Sporty213 (talk · contribs), the blocked sockpuppet whose comments he has been restoring, un-slashing, and supporting across this and at least one other AfD. I'd file an SPI, but I don't know the sockmaster. CtP (t • c) 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 22:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~: As ApprenticeFan said, he had no real pre-Survivor notability. He does seem to have a relatively small but nevertheless adequate level of notability for his connection to the book [29] (note that not everything there is a reliable source). CtP (t • c) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the sources found by that search reliable? And, if so, which? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's some borderline reliability. This looks like it could be a reliable source. EW is reliable, but that's already in the article… Taking a closer look, a couple of others which look like they could potentially be reliable sources are false postives, such as this one. Notability is still comparatively weak, and I'm displaying more inclusionism here than I typically do. I will probably revise my !vote. CtP (t • c) 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling it over for a bit, I've settled on weak delete due to spotty notability described by me above. CtP (t • c) 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could instead learn to call a spade a spade. A spade with a chalk marking on it, is still a spade. Therefore, spotty notability is still notability.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, allow me to reprhase: the level of "notability" I perceive for Phillip Sheppard is lower than what I would offer a standard "keep" !vote upon, and upon revisiting my prior searches there is less available than I initially thought. As for the spade metaphor, I see this as a spade missing its metal end: yes, it's still technically a spade, but it's not enough to be considered functional. CtP (t • c) 05:11, 24 February 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. Note this is not a keep closure as many of the votes were faulty it existed type votes that are usually discarded in AFD, and the policy based consensus either lean to move and discuss either a merge, a rename or something else, or delete. As those two sides are similarly split policy based, and AFD is not cleanup, it's a clear cut no consensus, and discuss this further on the talk page. Secret ^account 06:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner Government

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

Does not meet WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per Talk:Commissioner_Government#Notability. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 100000 more sources than it is presented in article. I will mention just a few that have more information's then just info: The National liberation war and revolution in Yugoslavia (1941-1945), Zbornik za povijest školstva i prosvjete, Volumes 19-21, Prilozi za istoriju socijalizma, Volumes 11-12, Religion Under Siege: Protestant, Orthodox and Muslim communities in occupied Europe (1939-1950), Nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia (Nada Dragić)... etc, etc. This article should be expanded, and not deleted. Relevant subject about puppet government in occupied Serbia. Keep, for sure. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I note that WW has not even made a cursory attempt to explain how he got the incredible 100,000 sources. This is just a repetition of the same unfounded nonsense that he has used in place of policy-based argument on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, obviously, its not "literally" 10.000 sources, but vast number of sources available on line. not to mention all of those that can be found off line. Anyway, that is irrelevant, sources are here, for sure, this article should be expanded, and then we may talk about it. But to delete only because you think that it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage? That is, i must use the same word again, obviously, wrong. Also, i think that nominator should not !vote, as his vote is already presented in nomination. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the AfD guideline, and have adopted the approach that my nomination shows my !vote. However, your comment "to delete ONLY because you think it fails WP:GNG per significant coverage" cannot be left alone. It is not "wrong", it is actually what the policy says. Please supply a diff showing the "vast number of sources available online", otherwise it is reasonable to assume you are relying on Proof by assertion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maker, you already have here 6 more sources, plus those in article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what coverage is there? Is it significant or is it just a passing mention? Give an example. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of passing mentions, (that should be in article also) but i will mention several main interesting things. Rehabilitovan Nedićev ministar Momčilo Janković Momčilo Janković, commissioner for justice obviously deserves the article, while informations from this case are very important for this govermnent also. There are a lot of information's about this article in Milan Nedić interrogation. (one small link, but i have some data also). Then some great information about colaboration in POTISNUTA ISTINA, Kolaboracija u Srbiji 1941-1944., with main data about so-called "Appeal to the Serbian people", which also can have article of its own. All of those should be mentioned here now. A lot of data to include. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The novosti article is about Janković and from what I understand from a very limited Google translate, it focuses on his role in the Nedić government, not his role or activities in the Commissioner Government. It certainly does not constitute significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government" which is the subject of this article. If you think Janković needs his own article, fill your boots, but that article is not an example of significant coverage of the "Commissioner Government". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all the rest of sources are. This is just a cherry on top. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another is a WP:CIRCULAR reference to the "Appeal to the Serbian People" article on sr WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing No such user's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppet State of Serbia - there's apparently a wider issue here: should all of these various aspects of Serbia during World War II be combined into one article, and if so, what should its title be? Currently the aforementioned redirect points to the main German occupation article which has an unwieldy title, while Axis occupation of Serbia has continued to linger, and the redirect Serbia in World War II points there. That alone is ridiculous. Similar to Yugoslavia in World War II, I'd think that the most generic title is the best compromise. Having a gazillion "former country" articles that duplicate history articles is usually more trouble than it's worth. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a lot of relevant info to say, then it deserves separate article. But when we have normal Serbia during World War II article, instead of this POV pushed monstrosity, we can maybe propose some other solution. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should back up your claims of a "POV-pushed monstrosity" with a modicum of cleanup tags or apologize for disrespecting what appears to be a fine contribution. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect an apology or recognition for the work from WW. It is evident from the lack of work they have put into the content that almost none of the editors that fought tooth and nail about the title of that article care a jot about the content. It's one of the reasons I am very wary about changing the title. It seems to me that it is be highly likely that a change to the title would be followed by a torrent of poorly sourced and revisionist changes to the article to make it about "eternal Serbia" rather than about a piece of Yugoslavia that the Germans administered using a military government. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Joy, can we keep this on topic? The discussion you want to have I am happy to contribute to, but this AfD discussion is not the place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on topic because the question is the same - are these subtopics of Serbia in WWII notable enough for standalone articles or not? Taken out of context, removing this article based on GNG seems like an awfully high standard for standalone notability. In context, it might not be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept the basic premise. Can you expand? Do you mean in the context of the Territory or in the context of the GNS or what? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the current CG article, out of any context, it seems notable enough - six book sources for just a four-month period. Sure, none of them are really significant, but to say that it adds up is plausible. It would actually fare well in comparison with e.g. State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. But, if we look at it in context of the fact it's just three paragraphs about something that's got to be described in the Territory... article anyway - then a removal (redirection) seems more appropriate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your summation. So you are in favour of making this article title a redirect to the Territory... one or the GNS one? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with the idea of merging the two puppet governments into one separate article if there was a way to name that article in a straightforward manner. I'm also fine with the idea of making them both section redirects into one article that is even more general, be it the Territory... article or an even more general article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. What about Serbian puppet governments during World War II to combine the two? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly also s/during/in/. Also, the assumption is that you'd move the relevant details from the Territory... article there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and arguments I had written on the talkpage[30]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It exist a lot of sources about this topic. I think its a relevant topic about puppet government in occupied Serbia during the WW2. This article should be expanded.--Nado158 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you asserting provide significant coverage? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have an article on the Government of National Salvation, so having an article on the preceding government makes sense. Whether the current title is the best I do not know, but that's a different question. I agree with Joy that the nominator's interpretation of the GNG sets the bar too high. Srnec (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Commissioner Government of Serbia or Commissioner Government (Serbia). The present title sounds like an article about the concept, rather than a particular administration (as the Americans would call it). The subject is clearly notable. Deficiencies with the quality of the refernecing are a matter for article improvement, not deletion. My only concern would be if this was duplicatiing sonething else. I note that there are a lot of redlinks, but some one who has served as a minister probably ought to have an article, even if the career was a short one due to the defeat of the Germans and expulsion of its Qisling government. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a little confused here. Is anyone disputing that such a government existed? If not, then as a national government it clearly deserves to have its own article, no matter how long it existed or how many sources cover it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp, not sure how your statement gels with WP policy on notability. In any case, this was a puppet government of an occupied territory, and can in no way be described as a national government. Serbia was not a nation at that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no policies on notability. There are guidelines and opinions. A puppet government is still effectively a national government. We use common sense here, not unswerving dogma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The administration of the territories occupied by Germany at this period is a subject of serious academic interest. The question of the legitimacy of that administration, and even whether the area was internationally recognised as a state, is irrelevant when we are talking of a de facto government, even a puppet one. Much greater difficulties actually arise over the legitimacy of governments in exile. The article is certainly inadequate and the title needs improvement but there is often a problem of paucity of sources with historical subjects. We need to maintain a neutral POV and avoid arguments based on a dislike of the subject matter. --AJHingston (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so who exactly are you saying made an argument based on a dislike of the subject matter here? Peacemaker67 seems to have spent a fair bit of time documenting the subject matter, so that can't possibly be a fair description of his stance; ZjarriRrethues said it's a content fork. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I am very interested in the subject matter, I just don't think this particular topic meets WP:GNG on its own. As Joy and I have discussed above, it and the Government of National Salvation (GNS) article (which is clearly notable and succeeded this administration) could very neatly be combined to create a Serbian puppet governments during World War II article. The sources are clear that neither of these "governments" actually did much governing, as the Germans maintained a "supervisory" military government which retained executive power over the entire territory. There is nothing POV about trying to place these issues in proper context. The fact that several editors commenting here have not known the nature of the "Commissioner Government" just shows that context is important. Either context alongside the GNS in a combined article, or context in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not enough to sustain a separate article, that's an argument for a merger, not deletion. There is nothing preventing context from being given in the article to prevent misunderstanding. That is also not an argument for deletion. To my mind, an AFD suggests that the title up for deletion ought to be permanently redlinked or that the article is a hoax. Neither is the case here. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Srnec on this. I thought I did detect a 'don't like it' line of argument on the talk page, but perhaps I misinterpreted. That the German attempt to establish this as a puppet administration failed, or that it never really had any power, are part of the topic. So is a comparison with other attempts to do so. Giving it space in WP does not confer retrospective legitimacy or importance. We have to be very careful in using GNG with historical topics because we are trying to apply current measures of notability retrospectively ('once notable, always notable'). The question might be whether we would think it notable if it happened now, at least in Serbia? That it may now be largely forgotten does not matter because an encyclopedia exists, at least in part, to tell us about things that we do not know. --AJHingston (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is a legitimate and not an uncommon result of an AfD, though in retrospect it might have made more sense to simply go with WP:PM on this. At this point we better wrap it up - do we have consensus here that the proposed merge is not controversial? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Merge this article and Government of National Salvation into a Serbian puppet governments of World War II article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)

You will have to propose that on talk page. This article will be obviously kept here in the current form. I disagree with merger, per keep voices above, and more reasons that will be explained on the relevant talk page, outside this RfD. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:41, 19 February 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article seems well referenced and of serious academic interest. Notability is ensured.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user Knight of Infinity has just recently created an account and most of his edits now are keep !votes in various AfDs... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:48, 24 February 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. I'm not sure why this was even relisted, keeps had no policy based comments. Secret ^account 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel San Miguel

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

Unsourced, for 2.5 years, no assertion of notability, wasn't able to find in-depth, reliable coverage, WP:NOTTRAVEL. ~~WikiTravel~~ Wikivoyage, on the other hand, is over thataway..... j⚛e decker ^talk 06:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Gsearch gives next to no relevant hits, thus appears to be a candidate to be migrated to Wikivoyage, if it's to be kept anywhere at all in Wikispace.. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for removal.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Migrating Hotel articles to Wikivoyage is a sure way to send any article into obscurity at this present time. I think this article should still be given time to mature and research may prove that the establishment may very well have notability. I do agree that the article needs to be referenced and needs expanding but to delete would be a backward step. stavros1 ♣ 12:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see from the History that ten different editors have made contributions to this article. It should be kept and allowed to develop further. At the moment there are very few Hotel Articles about Ibiza. As for notability? This has not been established either way.Cheeseladder (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page still needs time to grow. I agree with stavros1 that at this time Wikivoyage is a waste of space and difficult to navigate around, even when you know what you are looking forDemax (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepOne reason that would make a hotel notable here is that it is on the holiday island of Ibiza. An island that’s main notoriety is contrived from its beaches, hotels and hostels landscape and people. The one notion of notability implicates the other. The hotel would be nothing without the Island and the island would not be so notable without its hotel accommodation.Beechgrove (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the keep !voters, or !voter, as the case may be: WP:NRVE says: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As pointed out by j⚛e decker, in the guidelines WP:NRVE this article's subject Hotel San Miguel may well be notable if sources exist even if they have not been named yet. However. The actual proof has yet to be established. And as this guidance goes on to say, If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for this hotel, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. This article should be given more time to mature, deleting it should be disscussed at a much later stage. stavros1 ♣ 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Later stage? The article has existed since 2010. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, your citation to the Rough Guide appears to be incorrect. [31] As near as I can tell, the name of the Hotel does not appear in that book. Perhaps you meant another book? --j⚛e decker ^talk 09:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read page 126 the guide goes onto say Port de Sant Miquel’s beauty is tainted considerably by the portentous presence of two large and ugly concrete hotel blocks insensitively built into the eastern cliff. This is the Hotel San Miquel and its ugly sister’s. Not a very nice reference, but none the less a reference to this Hotel.
I assume in good faith that that is true, but it is not, verifiable from the text, which never mentions the name of the hotel. In addition to "not being very nice" (which doesn't really concern us here), it's also not "significant coverage" as that term is used in this guideline regarding notability on Wikipedia. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having been to this part of the island I personally think that this particular hotel complex is a carbuncle on the face of this beautiful cove, and I would happily see it demolished and returned the place to its natural beauty. Unfortunately Generalissimo Franco insisted on scaring this island with many hotels like this. The reason I think it is important to keep this article on Wikipedia is to, maybe act as a warning to future developers and to stand in the islands history of the way the Nationalist government saw tourism in southern Spain as a quick fix answer to its financial crises after the civil war. I don’t really have any interest in this hotel as a hotel but I think the fact that it is there at all needs to be recorded rather than sweeping it under a rather large Ibizan carpet (i.e. Delete). I realise that the reference in rough guide doesn’t actually name the hotel but I would imagine that is probably for liable reasons. Nevertheless it is a reference to the hotel. stavros1 ♣ 14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, nor is it a place for advocacy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the Above And this Page is not an article on the encyclopaedia only a discussion about the subject, of which we all have the right of reply!!! Here it is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. stavros1 ♣ 14:04, 12 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided to show the notability of this hotel. The two sources provided are a tourist guide and a map. If you want to say something about the island, put in that article. Or about Franco and Fascism in those articles. Borock (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence WP:N or WP:ORG are satisfied. Wikipedia is not a directory of every hotel. The fact that it is on Ibeza does not justify an article, since notability is not inherited. A possible passing reference in a tourist guide, which does not even mention it by name, is unconvincing. Claims that it might someday acquire proof of notability are unconvincing when the article has been here since 2010. The fact that several editors contributed to the article in no way demonstrates notability. Edison (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is poorly sourced, with little if any claim to notability for the subject, and I have not been able to find better sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This hotel article could be included in the article Port de Sant Miguel as it is the largest hotel in this resort. In could be added under a sub-title of Hotels and accommodation in the resort. Haydnaston (talk) 09:46, 20 February 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:36, 20 February 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. Poor discussion quality, including IPs edit-warring to close this discussion (!). I recommend relisting in a month or so in the hope of having a more focused discussion among experienced editors. Sandstein 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Hogi

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

Clasic case of WP:ONEEVENT, 96.224.44.119 16:28, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, it appears to be two events, since she is appearing on a second season. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only created a few days ago and hardly notable outside of the show. The only contestants that should get articles are the winners and this person lost early twice. Vao Tv1 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it makes if it was made a few days ago or a few years ago? Show me the policy where me must delete new articles just because they are new - oh wait, you can't. Also, some people didn't win Survivor, but are notable for other reasons such as Jonathan Penner. Also, she lost FIRST twice and was the FIRST person to do so, a distinction not seen before. I don't believe she's as notable as Phillip Sheppard but that's besides the point, the standard is Wikipedia policy, not other articles. --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Falls under WP:BIO. Very well sourced. Noteworthy contestant towards the franchise. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed as she is notworthy to the series as the furst contestant eliminated first twice, while Sandra Diaz-Twine also has a Wikipedia article for winning twice.205.209.83.211 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is very obviously not a case of WP:ONEEVENT. It's well-sourced, and while it may need a bit of cleanup, it's well worth keeping. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she appeared on a highly notable television show in 2011 and then again in a different season TWO YEARS later? Yeah, if this is 'one event', then the moon is made of cheese. Plus her first person voted out first twice on a reality show distinction.DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 24.46.86.58 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions page. Not only does your 'per nom' contribute nothing new to the table, but it's also been pretty established that this isn't WP:ONEEVENT. Thirdly, WP:DUCK suggests you are using multiple IP Adresses to WP:VOTESTACK--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing to this: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. –BuickCentury Driver 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to AGF. I think the nominator is trying to point out the subject is only notable for Survivor. I seriously doubt that just because someone gets on a reality TV show they get their own article. The example of Jonathan Penner that DrumstickJuggler provided is that the person was notable before he appeared on the show and he has other sources, but to write an article about someone because they came on the show more than once make it more of fancruft, in my opinion. The question is whether or not this person notable outside Survivor. –BuickCentury Driver 19:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, are you keeping to what is actually on the table, or are you just tring to cloud the discussion with nonsensical fluff instead of the actual discussion at hand? WP:AGF or not WP:DUCK suggests this editor is quacking madly and whether or not they make a valid case, any sockpuppets they might be using should be blocked accordingly. Also, I don't think just anyone should have a page but she appeared on TWO television seasons and they were TWO years apart. She has appeared on professional lists of popular reality show personalities as well. She also has a distinction that hadn't been seen before in being voted out first TWICE. She is also the only early vote-off to be invited back for another season, although I can understand the claim in this current sentence to be seen as more trivia than a distinction.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still what you're pointing out is all Survivor stuff, nothing outside the show. –BuickCentury Driver 19:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list of popular reality televsion contestants encompasses an entire genre of television personalities, not just personalities of the show. Interesting how you also have no response to the WP:DUCK part of my comment. I'll WP:AGF and say that you weren't trying to patronize, but in case you were, it looks like it backfired.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but reading those articles all are notable for things outside the show. Getting voted out first twice is purely survivor trivia. –BuickCentury Driver 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's reality television distinction. Name me one show in the entire genre where this has happened before.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fail notability guidelines and is full of survivor stuff. 2604:2D00:5:0:216:3EFF:FEF2:5BEC (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to explain why it supposedly fails notability guidelines? It's all well and good to make a statement like that, but if you don't back it up with explaining why, your claim won't hold much water. Plus, Survivor stuff = full of stuff from a highly notable television show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she is not notable outside of Survivor and while she is notorious for being the first player eliminated on two different seasons, there is no information on her page right now that would not fit on the pages for both seasons. As other editors stated, her statistic is trivial and does not merit having her own page. - Katanin (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you put for exmaple her ranking on the list of most popular African-American personalities? I'll admit I'm not sure when it was made but if it was done when there was even a chance of knowledge that she would be appearing on a later season (Caramoan), then that information at the very least may have influenced the rankings. I haven't actually read the source despite knowing it exists, but it can probably be found without too much hassle and for the reason I explained, if the list is from either early this year or in 2012, the reason I explained means it could be unclear which page it would better suit, meaning it may not be as simple as you make it sound to just delete and put the information elsewhere. As for redirecting, you basically can't because she has a pretty even connection to both of her seasons. Like other delete claimers here, it seems as though you are looking at the box, but you are not actually looking inside the box, to put it into a context.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The African-American reality stars list is not cited and, after a brief search as suggested by you, I can't find it. Also, the Dalton Ross quote ("Nobody has given you as much praise as we have.") is not in the cited article and, as discovered after another quick search, is only found on the Wikipedia page in question and other pages that have been lifted directly from it. As per precedent with Russell Hantz, the page would be redirected to "List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. All of the properly cited and notable information already exists in the Redemption Island and Caramoan pages, and the information in the "Reception" section is either trivial, uncited or cited from a non-reputable source. Using Survivor Sucks as evidence for someone's reception is not valid, as there are supportive and non-supportive threads for nearly every player that has played Survivor. - Katanin (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point, but then if this does get deleted, it would only be justice for the people desperate to see the page deleted to make sure to put the reliably sourced information in these articles. It is also no excuse for Phillip Sheppard to be under the microscope for similar reasons to Francesca Hogi because at least in his case, he is a United States Army veteran/former federal agent cited as having a book that is seperate from the show.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliably sourced information that is not already in either of the two pages. Please leave discussion of Phillip Sheppard's RfD to that specific page. - Katanin (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that the information is on those pages, otherwise justice isn't serve. I also didn't discuss Phillip Sheppard merely mentioned him in passing so please get your terminology in order.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most Survivor candidates who have their own pages are noteworthy only because of their participation in the show. By being eliminated first in two seasons Francesca Hogi has made Survivor history, even if in a negative sense. - AK456 (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per everyone voted keep on the article. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete pure trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.36 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly take the opportunity to mention that we have another person here who claims that this should be 'delete' people, but again fails to give a reason as to WHY. Namely, why is it trivia? I wonder why they couldn't put that in their post? Hmmm.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Katinin. Sporty213 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Sporty213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , blocked as a sock[reply]
Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , blocked as a sock[reply]
Comment: I am restoring the above two comments as they were posted before they were blocked and were blocked without warning or interaction to the users. I strongly suggest that anyone concerned with the legitamacy of these editors use the investigaions page. Thank you 174.226.4.31 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.38.111 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AFD was closed by 174.236.68.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Sunday and was reopened again by Frietjes (talk · contribs) yesterday. –BuickCentury Driver 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 February 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) 20:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw ESL

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Jigsaw ESL has not been the subject of sustained, in-depth coverage from any independent sources. There have been perhaps 3 news articles where the company's name is mentioned in passing.[32][33][34]. These are stories about celebrity-branded perfumes, where Jigsaw is only mentioned as an example of such a marketer. See WP:CORPDEPTH. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 8+ sources of evidence and notable coverage, not 3. It has since been edited further with more applicable sources such as their notability on niche specialist forums.

[35][36] [37] [38] [39] This may suit your standards more appropriately as the articles are not 'passing' their name. Let me know? Rosiehannah (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Never heard of them. However if they're the "invisible brand" behind the 'sleb-branded products like Jade Goody and Katie Price's fragrances (which are clearly notable under those names), then we should cover them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like notability by association, or inherited notability. Not every enterprise a celebrity touches is automatically notable. The whole point, of course, is that the product is supposed to be as famous as the celebrity, but that doesn't always happen. If being the brand behind celebrity perfumes is notable, then why don't reliable sources take notice write about it? And if we keep the article, where are the independent sources we need to cite the content? Currently it's filled with primary sources and self-published sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the manufacturer of such fine fragrances as l'eau de Goody is clearly notable as the maker of significant and popular products, much the same as any other perfumier with that kind of volume sales. The fact I didn't know they were called "Jigsaw", and that they don't print this on the bottles, doesn't change this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely plausible. But again, if they ship a notable volume of perfume, where are the independent sources taking note of it? You're saying "It's notable because it's notable" instead of saying "It's notable because independent sources x, y, and z" wrote about it. Articles about Jade Goody or her perfume don't confer notability on things associated with the perfume, the marketer, importer, manufacturer, bottle maker, etc. The subject of the article itself, Jigsaw ESL, must be the focus of a minimum of indepenent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because of sources w[40], x[41], y[42] and z[43]. Your point is quite discombobulating; This is meant to be an encyclopedia where people learn and check facts. If not a lot of people know Jigsaw ESL is key marketer and manufacturer of international perfume then this is where Wikipedia shows its power and confirms new information and facts. It is an incredibly necessary page. Rosiehannah (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - They are a key part in celebrity branded products - why wouldn't you cover them? Rosiehannah (talk) 12:03, 12 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because of sources w[44], x[45], y[46] and z[47]. Your point is quite discombobulating; This is meant to be an encyclopedia where people learn and check facts. If not a lot of people know Jigsaw ESL is key marketer and manufacturer of international perfume then this is where Wikipedia shows its power and confirms new information and facts. It is an incredibly necessary page. Rosiehannah (talk) 11:05, 14 February 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The links provided to not spawn notability, they are inside key, reference or technical notes regarding acquisition or changes in the company.Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 168.94.245.2 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Foac (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Foac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked as sock. CtP (t • c) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just going to keep being re-listed until you decide it gets deleted? Please can someone either help me to improve it or remove the deletion box from the top? Thank you kindly. Rosiehannah (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but just because a company exists doesn't mean it meets the WP notability guidelines; please see WP:NCORP. The issue here seems to be the independence of the sources; "industry" sources generally have a symbiotic relationship with their subjects. All the best, Miniapolis 20:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references on the page are terrible and don't meet our standards and do not establish it's notability. Independent research does not seem to net much results either. Contrary to other posters beliefs, just because they are the distributor for a popular product doesn't make this product generally notable. Winning an award from only one agency also is not sufficient and there is no general coverage of this company suggesting that it is significant in any way. This article seems to be nothing more than just a list of clients/products and doesn't establish anything about the company itself. Overall it seems like spam, and many of the references are spam, blog or other sites which fail as reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; no independent, secondary RS. Miniapolis 20:25, 28 February 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) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAMWiki

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

This was deleted at AFD but a DRV was raised querying whether the sources were sufficiently discussed. The consensus of the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 5 is that this should be relisted so here we are. As the DRV closer I am listing this as a procedural matter and am therefore neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to the possible reliable source I mentioned in the previous AfD, an article on "Collaborative trust evaluation for wiki security", I was able to secure a PDF copy of the article in question. There is no doubt that it is a peer-reviewed reliable source, but only one paragraph was devoted to JAMWiki, which doesn't seem to be enough to be in depth. Other possible sources, but it is a stretch:

JAMWiki in the Cloud: a step-by-step tutorial This is a blog, but presumably written by an expert at Jelastic, so could be reliable
Integrating RankingAlgorithm Search Engine with JAMWiki In depth case study, but likely not a reliable source

The first source is in-depth and independent of JAMWiki; it could be an RS, if folks consider a tutorial an RS. The second source is a tutorial, but only about a specialized aspect of the software. --Mark viking (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the software's author, so please ignore if this is a WP:COI. I'm not sure whether coverage from security firms is relevant for notability purposes, but Secunia has considered JAMWiki to be noteworthy enough to issue two security advisories for past releases: CVE-2010-5054 and CVE-2007-01-31. There are also a handful of research papers out there for projects using JAMWIki - one such example is "Support for Integrity Module as Plug-in in an Existing Wiki" by Christopher Folsgaard & Mark Ludwigs [48]. -- Wrh2 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am still (i.e. since last AfD) happy that this clears the notability bar because of the numerous references (admittedly brief) in a books search, evidence of widespread use, and the security advisories above. There's also the comparative review at [49]. Mcewan (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons that I originally nominated this article for deletion. I think it's obvious that this wiki software has a small, devoted fan base. I think it's also obvious that there's not a single, unambiguous indicator as to its notability. It's been mentioned only briefly in books, and even the mentions it gets in unreliable sources like blogs and wikis tend to be brief. That thesis project in which a JAMWiki plugin was developed seems like the strongest case for the software's notability, and there may be other, similar projects, but it still doesn't seem like enough to me. Yaron K. (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. No indication this is any more notable than it was last time, not even a month ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 15 February 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only "evidence" for the subject's notability seem to consist of original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 24 February 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) 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renderosity

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

PROD contested by a new user named "Renderosity". Tagged since 2010 as lacking sources. Despite a flurry of recent edits, not one reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject has been brought forward. Best effort has been an NYT article which merely mentions (ie not "significant coverage") that the site exists and a gallery book "Digital Art for the 21st Century" published by the Editor-in-Chief of Renderosity Magazine (ie not "Independent of the subject"). No sign or indication of notability. GDallimore (Talk) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any significant sources independent of the subject to verify notability. Most coverage appears to be press release-generated news which is not sufficient. freshacconci talktalk 17:23, 20 February 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. Sandstein 20:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR)

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

This series of year specific articles are each nothing more than the title and an external link. Search for an appropriate article to redirect to came up empty. 2009 Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP) doesn't seem appropriate as it appears to be different enough from these that a redirect could create confusion. UK articles on a similar topic are not appropriate either. Redirecting to that parent article, Bank stress tests doesn't seem like the right step either since this isn't a likely search term and that article is more of a disambiguation page anyway RadioFan (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason listed above:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Bank stress tests has been reviewed by User:BD2412 an admin ranked 13 on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It was determined NOT to be a disambiguation page but instead a stub class Broad-Concept Article. I orginally converted Bank stress tests from an odd redirect to a disamb. However, after learning more about disambig mechanics, I wholly agree with User:BD2412 that its best off as a stub class Broad-Concept Article. Its highly likely to expand over time. see Talk:Bank stress tests. 2012 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) is a stub class article describing the 2012 stress testing conducted in the United States. It has a citation to the original sources. 2013 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) is also a stub class article describing the current, ongoing stress tests conducted in the United States. It also has a citation to original sources. The results of this year's testing are not even yet reported, yet the program specifications have been fully published and massive amounts of work are currently underway. It will be internationally covered business news when the test results are reported. The stub serves as a pre-established landing spot. Its likely that the U.K. and Asian regulators also subjected their banks to stress tests in the post Financial crisis of 2007–2008 period which should also deserve dedicated Wikipedia coverage. Rick (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment worth noting that Bank stress tests is not under discussion for deletion here, just the 3 yearly Comprehensive Capital Assesment Review articles. Each repeats the article title and has an external link. Not even really a stub. Pretty clear case of WP:TOSOON RadioFan (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back into Bank stress test. bd2412 T 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved from "Bank stress tests" to List of bank stress tests. Not an article, just a list. With that accomplished the three "thin stubs" can be removed as that seems to be intensely desired. Rick (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment a list article would be needed only if we had a complete article on the topic itself. Seems to me that this list should be moved back to Bank stress tests where the list can live as well. No need for two articles here.--RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - response there are not two articles. Bank stress test (note it was made just singular) is just a simple redirect. If someone wants to write a general article about bank stress test, including the techniques commonly employed, what individual banks do internally, that redirect can be removed and they can write a full article. The second page is a brief list page, a listing of major bank stress tests by year and country/region. The thin stub pages links were added to the List of bank stress test pages and wiki-links removed. I believe they are now orphaned so they can be removed. Rick (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment I see the list article has been moved back to bank stress tests by an admin. --RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is currently a proposal at Talk:Bank stress test, which I strongly support, under which the current morass would be resolved by moving Stress test to Stress test (disambiguation), then moving Stress testing to Stress test as the primary topic of the term, and breaking out sub-articles on Stress test (physical), Stress test (financial), and Stress test (software). The material now at Bank stress test will then be merged into Stress test (financial), after which I see no reason to have any list separate from the article itself, since neither will be overly long. bd2412 T 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support the above proposal with the addition that the articles that are the subject of this AFD be deleted. RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the stubs have no value whatsoever other than a link, and the proposed disambiguation and moves seem perfectly rational to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2011 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Rick (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2012 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Rick (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2013 Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR) Reason: the 2013 tests are in process and will be reported in March. If anyone wants to flesh out a full article on that its good to have the sub page there ready for it. If that doesn't happen in 6 mo to a year, can delete this stub at that time. Rick (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there was a strong pattern of articles for previous years along with editors eagerly maintaining them, I'd tend to agree with retaining the 2013 article. But there isn't such a pattern and there aren't editors who have demonstrated interest in maintaining these articles. That being said, there is no reason these articles couldn't be created should that interest materialize.--RadioFan (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One reason for retaining 2013, at least for a reasonable period after the the release of results in March 2013, is the tendency of people to write such an article without using the year. e.g. Comprehensive Capital Assessment Review (CCAR). Plus the stub article serves as a royal invitation to contribute. Getting solid financial contributors has been a challenge (even on major topics). Finance people tend to "let the other guy do it". I'm not fully aware of all the apparent effort there must be in maintaining stub level articles, or if there is a difficult procedure resurrecting a deleted page a couple of months later. If its a pain to maintain admin wise and breeze to resurrect then delete.Rick (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to these stubs. If we want to mention them at List of bank stress tests, that's fine, but I wouldn't call it a merge. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely pointless articles. Nothing to merge either as they are already included in List of bank stress tests.--Staberinde (talk) 20:30, 28 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cari Roccaro

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that she had played for the US U20 team. However, WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes this as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. In this case the PROD was contested on the grounds that Ms Capbell had been called to the US national team, but since she didn't actually play this does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With recent expansion of article and citations, clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Hmlarson (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Jane Campbell is a clear GNG and NFOOTY failure, though looks to be one of them any players that go through AfD that will ultimately have their own article once their professional carreer actually starts. Cari Roccaro is a better sourced article, but many of the references are passing references to transfers and there are only a couple that could be described as anything other than cursory. She seems very close to the cusp of GNG, but not quite yet. Would have no issue with either article being recreated in time. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should keep both - Cari Roccaro was created when she was in high-school, and Jane Campbell is still in high-school. Notability is not temporary as indicated by GNG. Many web references and news can be found for both these players via internet, using different search websites. Images of Cari Roccaro are found on http://commons.wikipedia.org in the form of group photographs of the U20 team winning the 2012 FIFA U20 Women's World Cup. While there is no free image of Jane Campbell, many images exist. I suggest that Jane Campbell (soccer) article not be deleted just because photographers make a living with their skill. The content are all accrate and fully sourced, and the articles should be kept. The objections had centered around the players' youth and lack of fully-professional league to play in. I recommend keeping these articles on notability. They are no less notable than other young players: Zakiya Bywaters and Adrianna Frach. I noticed Bywaters has a new article, and article on Franch was recently restored.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. This applies as much to other articles as to images of the subjects. The sources available for these women are routine sports journalism making them insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally agree with SirS. Additionally, there seems to be confusion here as to what consitutes notability. It is a long held consensus at WP:FOOTY that representation at youth international level does not automatically confirm notability, so the arguement that notability is not temporary, is not really relevant here. Other players may have articles, and it seems there is a case for them to be considered for AfD, not the other way around. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Convinced Cari Roccaro passes WP:GNG. Sources exist like [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. In addition to these sources, she is mentioned in a large number of soccer related news sites. YouTube search indicates she appears to have been interviewed by television stations. --LauraHale (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criterias.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of these young ladies meets our notability requirements just yet. When considering the notability of an athlete that has not yet competed professionally or at the highest level of their sport coverage must be exceptional to meet WP:GNG. The sources brought up in this discussion are local coverage. these are explicitly excluded under Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#High school and pre-high school athletes. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Cari Roccaro, if LauraHale's better cited sources (the non-local ones, which may not violate WP:ROUTINE) are added to the article; if they were there in the first place, we might not be here. Miniapolis 22:04, 1 March 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) 10:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Bates (Psycho)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is almost entirely unreferenced and features WP:PLOTONLY description of fictional character from the four films. Only references listed are for IMDB and an "unofficial" Robert Bloch website providing WP:OPINION analysis of the character.

Google searches for Norma Bates and Norma Bates Psycho provide no significant coverage that would help this article meet WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this character has appeared across different fictional works, especially as a live character in the TV series Bates Motel, I think we could piece together coverage about this character. I found here a book called A Visual Perversity: A Re-articulation of Maternal Instinct, that has a whole chapter titled "To spare a fly and harm a son: Hitchcock's Norma Bates". There may be more out there that is more embedded in general Psycho coverage but can be pulled together for this particular scope. I do agree that the article needs to be cleaned up. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is another source, a journal article titled "'Do You Love Mother, Norman?': Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily' and Metalious's Peyton Place as Sources for Robert Bloch's Psycho" that significantly covers Norma Bates. Also found this journal article titled, "Mother Knows Best: The Voices of Mrs. Bates in Psycho". I think there are sufficient sources from this preliminary search to suggest there is more out there, so I would argue for keeping the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to be psycho not to keep him. One of the most memorable characters in film history, number two in AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains, 80th on this list, in scads of movies and TV shows (e.g. Saturday Night Live). Good golly, how much more notability do you need? Wake up and hear the screeching violins. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Psst. Norma Bates, not Norman Bates. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, hmmm ... how can I think with all those violins playing? Yeah, that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the different films and TV shows and Erik's finds. She's also one of the top 10 worst moms in literature according to BookFinder.com.[63] A merger with Norman Bates would be decidedly unhealthy ... Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the sources above are sufficient, just to pile on with sources, though, there's also a bit of coverage in "PARANOID PROJECTIONS: SELF AND SOCIETY IN "THE SEARCHERS" AND "PSYCHO"" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053364), "Francie Pig vs. the Fat Green Blob from Outer Space: Horror Films and "The Butcher Boy"" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20558086), ""If Thine Eye Offend Thee...": Psycho and the Art of Infection" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/25561016), which could be used to say a few words about the meaning of Norma's character. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:33, 27 February 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 06:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Nya Svenskarna

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

The article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. I can find no coverage of this party whatsoever is secondary sources. The party received eleven votes total in the Swedish general election of 2002, followed by six votes total in the subsequent election. The article has previously been deleted once, and prodded. Gabbe (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, for my own edification, can you link to the page showing how many votes they got? -Drdisque (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final tallies from the Election Authority of Sweden are available for 2002 (11 votes), 2006 (6 votes) and 2010 (no votes). Gabbe (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tomas e (talk) 16:30, 21 February 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. After discounting the two "keep" opinions that are simply votes because they don't address the reasons why the article should be kept or deleted, consensus is that the list has an unmanageably broad scope. That being so, editors who want to split it into more manageable pieces are free to request userfication for that purpose. Sandstein 20:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of military commanders

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOG & WP:OVERLISTIFICATION. This list is massively overbroad, better dealt with via catagories, and badly handled.

WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION#ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE are also relevant: it's not an adjective, but what constitutes a "military commander"–political leadership or generalship; unit commanders (of whatever size) or individual soldiers displaying leadership; figureheads such as Joan of Arc...–is at the moment entirely arbitrary: There are no criteria for inclusion provided & no rational ones could exist that connect mythological Chinese emperors, medieval knights, and Ehud Barak in his role as civilian commander of the Israeli military.

Also, as original nomination. The page has had years to hit its stride, make sense, or fork sensibly. It hasn't. The points made by the original noms have been borne out; those made by the opposition have proven to have been incorrect or overly-optimistic. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Deeply indiscriminate list which could conceivably encompass every soldier in Wikipedia above the rank of corporal—assuming the army/navy/etc. in question even had ranks with names. And of course as the nominator says, there's any number of civilians who could be tossed into the mix. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just silly, this is always guaranteed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better covered by categories. Weak delete (or userfy if somebody wants to check the list and convert it into the appropriate categories). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to revise my opinion, as long as some reasonable criteria for inclusion are agreed upon. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that this would be better done by category is false and explicitly contradicted by WP:CLN, "Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists...". WP:NOTCATALOG is irrelevant as that's talking about sales catalogs. And WP:OVERLISTIFICATION is an essay which does not represent policy. The fact that this list is large tells us that a lot of work has gone into it and so it would be blatant WP:DISRUPTION to delete this. And should anyone doubt the notability of the topic, per WP:LISTN, please see sources such as Military Commanders - just one of many such surveys. Warden (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one hell of a strawman. Go read WP:NOTCATALOG again: it is not talking only about sales catalogs. — $Llywelyn II$ 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. It's either a list that can encompass every leader in every little skirmish in history, or you set some arbitrary standard to keep it to a manageable scope. Neither works for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only list those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Obviously when you have a list of something, it means "notable", even without having that word in the title. These are people famous for being military commanders. It is not indiscriminate. For those of you not familiar with how Wikipedia lists work, look at any of the thousands of them. Dream Focus 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Famous like Henri Dentz in the Battle of Beirut (1941) or Ernst-Felix Krüder in the Action of 8 May 1941? There are thousands upon thousands of senior but obscure officers who've commanded in battle and have articles about them. Yikes, look at the hordes listed for the Battle of Pteria alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst-Felix Krüder was a naval commander and we have List of sea captains and Lists of admirals for those. Do you want to delete those too? Do you want to leave readers with no way of navigating and browsing our thousands upon thousands of articles? Warden (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, when did "having a Wikipedia article or not" become a test for discrimination? There are loads of people who were corporals, sergeants, or even lieutenants in wartime, but whose significance is based on something else entirely p b p 02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not full of corporals and sergeants though, is it? So that's just a straw man. It is quite normal for list entries to be expected to have Wikipedia articles per WP:CSC, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." This list is mostly blue links and the corresponding articles are mostly kings and generals, just as one would expect. Warden (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: having a Wikipedia article isn't discriminate enough. This would be better handled by a bunch of little lists rather than one big one p b p 02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much too broad a topic to have any workable inclusion/exclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The list was started nearly ten years ago and it was quite clear what the idea was - to have a list of major military leaders like Alexander, Napoleon and Rommel. The list has been expanded by good effort since then and it still conforms reasonably well to this goal. There's still more to be done but this will not be assisted by deletion. For example, there's currently a redlink for Samudragupta. That person is not well known in the west but was a great conqueror in India - in the same league as Napoleon. That person is not in any military category - just category:Indian people and so the category system is doing a worse job than the list in this case. How is our coverage of great commanders assisted by deletion in this case? What have you got to offer instead? Warden (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem. Who decides who is a "major" or "great" military leader? Does Ariobarzanes, Satrap of Persis really qualify? The criteria are just too ill-defined, even including the "notoriously flamboyant, incompetent or otherwise famous". I suppose it could be salvaged if it were renamed List of military commanders considered among the greatest ever, with proper sourcing for each entry, which would leave out our friend Ariobarzanes and a whole lot of others on this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariobarzanes gave Alexander the Great a hard fight and so he was not some lowly corporal. How is his presence in this list a problem? How is it a problem if our readership should want to find and read more about him? The 10-year history of this article does not indicate that there have been any significant disputes about such matters. We should not be deleting substantial content for the sake of hypothetical or imaginary concerns. Warden (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is more useful than a category, since it shows more information, so you know what articles would be of interest to you. This is a list of all military commanders that have their own Wikipedia article. If you want to make separate list for just some leaders, that's fine too, no reason why you can't have entries on more than one list. Dream Focus 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it will always be unmanageably broad, arbitrarily subjective or massively incomplete, probably all three. Agricolae (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some evidence to support your contention. For example, what entries are missing and why would their absence be a policy-based reason to delete the list, rather than developing it further? Warden (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A while back I more than quadrupled the number of listings for Iberia by only adding just the most prominent of names from one of the six Christian states for just a 300 year period. Just listing all of the Iberians military commanders who currently have pages would probably include several thousand names, and we have, what, 24? That equates to being woefully incomplete, while pages for Iberian noblemen (almost by definition military commanders) are being added faster than names are being added to this list, which means it is unmanageable (or at least unmanaged). And what would be the point of listing all those names, as a list that long is unusable. We are literally talking about tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages in a list that was anywhere close to complete (just in terms of those with WP pages), maybe even 100,000 or more. Recently, an attempt has been made to limit it to commanders someone or other thinks were important - that is both unmanageable and subjective - I have seen such limits placed on short lists work, but only when there was a clearly defined set of criteria and a small body of interested souls to police the list regularly, but this list has no defined criteria, and covering 4000 years of history across every continent but Antarctica (but then, Shackleton and Ross were military commanders there too) is too broad for anyone to police in this manner. Such a list can never be anything but a problem - incomplete, POV, and arbitrary. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the criteria for inclusion needs to be made clearer, as it could include commanders of low-level units throughout history!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would vote Split if that were an option. The list is far to big to be useful, the selection of people is random, the information given is inconsistent and the organization is confused. The list should define better inclusion criteria to eliminate platoon leaders who went on to create fast food chains. Focused lists like List of Costa Rican military commanders would be much more useful. I would support a move to split this list into smaller country- or region-specific lists, assuming it survives this discussion, and leave this one as an index to the smaller lists. With a country-specific article it may be possible to find some way to organize the list systematically, including redlinks. But just because this article is a mess does not mean it should be deleted. It needs work, e.g. splitting, is all. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, much better to be comprehensive and focused, I'd use this article as an index/navigation base and create separate lists with more focus. Throughout the entirety of history and all empires and nations is an awful lot to try to cover in one. I mean, you wouldn't have a list of soldiers in one article, you'd break it down by empire/nation and in specific time periods.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that constructive restructuring would be sensible. What I found when I started cleaning up the list was that there were multiple half-baked tables which were quite confusing and hard to work with. That approach hasn't worked out and so I reverted to make the original structure of the list clear. Sub-lists would be a sensible way of dealing with cases where there might be many entries. For example, there's Commanders of World War II which is given as a sub-list. That has all the same problems of scope because there were millions of officers in WWII and many of them have sufficiently notability to warrant articles on Wikipedia. The sub-list can be left to deal with that problem of scale while this list can give some of the major examples like Monty, Patton, Rommel and Zhukov and then refer to the sub-list. Having a tree of hierarchic lists is a common way of managing such data. For a well-developed example, see list of writers. Warden (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is best, as with lists of writers, to have no people at all in the main index list, which should be strictly a list of lists. But that is a discussion for the article's talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dr. B that there need to be more defined qualifications, . The current list is a very broad list, and I would perhaps that should be supplemented by a more exclusive one for which the basic qualification would be "famous". I'd suggest a general "famous" list and then divided lists for the merely notable. We also need to decide whether to include purely political leaders during a war. There also needs to be a consistent format; the point of a list is that it can give more information than a category, but too many of the entries in the list are still a bare list of names. INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIRECTORY never holds for a list composed of those subjects who have BLP articles, and a list and a category are not exclusive--most should have both. There are no other actual arguments for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment]. Just to put things in perspective, Category:United States Army generals has 1,646 pages, Category:British Army generals has 1,487 pages, Category:Royal Navy admirals 1,128 pages, Category:Wehrmacht generals 754 pages etc. etc. (most of those previous cases could have gotten another few hundred from sub categories). There is nothing stopping from pushing this list into massive 10,000+ entries except extreme tediousness of the task.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are corresponding lists such as List of British generals and brigadiers, which have many entries. But the numbers involved are still orders of magnitude less than some of our list structures such as list of species or list of minor planets. We even have some lists of infinite scope - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre for the lengths that some will go to. Lists of generals are comparatively manageable. Warden (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would look hilarious if someone for example would add all thousands of British (or US) generals, admirals and air force generals. Would totally dwarf the rest of list in its current form. But there would be no basis for removal of any entries in such case, and only way to restore some sort of balance would be doing exactly same for all other countries.--Staberinde (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sense consensus that this list in its current state is far too big, arbitrary, etc. to be useful, and that if the title is to be kept, it should be converted to a "list of lists". I don't mind helping with that. Lists of names alone are not much use - they should have some additional information, sequence and structure. There remains a question over whether some of the sub-lists would also be too big to be manageable. A list of 1,646+ United States Army generals would indeed be large. There were a lot of General Smiths. But the very large lists can be subdivided into lists of lists or organized under headings. Would a reader search for "military commander?" I think they might, and this article, if changed into a list of lists, some of which could also be lists of lists, could get readers exploring and finding interesting stuff they would never have thought of looking for. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added all the entries from List_of_British_generals_and_brigadiers and I'll find some sailors and pilots to add in next. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all 68 bleedin' pages of them. The whole benefit of having a page List of British generals and brigadiers is so you don't have to list them all on the main page. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? If they are commanders, and generals are clearly commanders, why can't I add them to the list? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but see the comment of Staberinde above. The question is whether it is valuable to repeat the information in this manner (and hence double the upkeep). The bigger question is whether such an unfocussed list, covering all commanders from all countries from all periods in history, one that currently lists in that section 1000+ Brits and 1 from China, is useful. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible reason to list every single person who ever had the rank of general. The start of the article establishes the inclusion criteria. Are you flooding the article to be sarcastic? You obviously know there is no possible way to list every single general who ever existed in every army around the world. Dream Focus 08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The term "commander" seems be causing the problem. At some level, all military personnel exercise authority, so everyone listed in Category:Military personnel and its subcategiories can be included in the article. Revising the lead to read something like -- List of military commanders is a compilaton of commissioned officers whose importance/significance primarily stems from their command of a military unit. -- might help inform editors of who can be added to the list. That may run into problems in determining whether ancient commanders or commanders in a variety of countries were "commissioned," but it is a move forward. Without "commissioned" in the scope, you run into the problem of whether non-commissioned officers (corporal and sergeant in some countries) are to be included in the list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In concept this is fine, but in practice, do we really leave it up to editors to decide the primary basis for notability of an individual? Might this exclude, say, Eisenhower, who arguably could be said to be of primary importance as President of the USA, yet whose military exploits cannot be overlooked. Likewise this focus on commissions effectively removes every commander prior to the formalization of ranks and commissions - most of history. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Spartaz is making clear above, without a statement of scope and inclusion criteria of the list, it will be very hard to get editors on the same page as to what can and cannot be included in the list. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists. In other words, one editor can feel that something does not belong in the list and another editor feel that it does and both are right because there is no standard against which to decide. The primary basis for notability of an individual should be in the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article, so that is where editors can figure out whether their importance/significance primarily stems from their command of a military unit. Military commanders over all time in all countries too vague for editors to agree on what can and cannot be included. Something has to be revised. "Commander" has several meanings.[64] Pick one and use that to create the statement of scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Otherwise, the list would not seem to exclude something like the chief officer of a commandery in the medieval orders of Knights Hospitalers, Knights Templars, and others noted at dictionary.reference.com/. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without a shadow of a doubt. It's bloated, indiscriminate, and seems to possess no singular focus. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Notable topic. The article needs CE in some parts. Inserting one or more templates to lighten the article would be a good idea.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not for nothing, but the article needs CE in no parts, per WP:ERA and this edit establishing BC/AD as the page's format. — $Llywelyn II$ 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The editors above who are saying "Keep but Split" and "Keep as Index to other Lists"... could you explain how such an "index of lists" page is in any way different from categories? (And given the categories don't have to be maintained by hand and are harder to vandalize, what worth do you think such a list of lists page would actually have?) — $Llywelyn II$ 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There have been more 'keep' votes since the new lede came in, but I would like to point out that
This is a list of military commanders. These include the "great captains" of history, as they were styled by military historian Liddell Hart; the major leaders of the armies in the most decisive battles of world history. Also included are those who were notoriously flamboyant, incompetent or otherwise famous, such as General Custer.
means we're still including the (a) inarguably great, the (b) 'major' leaders at the 'most decisive' battles (whatever our editors decide those are), and the (c) everyone else with a page.

This is not really an improvement, nor can it be improved with such a weak title and such vague adjectives involved. Any attempts to maintain a shallow list without much more narrowly-tailored wording is going to run into WP:BIAS issues. What this article covers really is as broad as a major metacategory & what it started as and some editors above think they can have really needs to be rebuilt from scratch at another namespace like famed military tacticians (with the criterion that they be currently studied at major military academies or even at all major military academies). — $Llywelyn II$ 22:51, 27 February 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) 10:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Caballero

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

Unref'd stub for nearly eight years. I can't find any reliable sources to indicate notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Unable to find any reliable source material. Grillo7 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The historical record is sketchy but GBooks shows hundreds of references (some in Spanish)[65] to him as a leader of Misión San Miguel Arcángel de la Frontera and the founder of Misión de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe del Norte, the last Mission in Baja, in 1834[66][67][68] and as a leader of an early expedition through Arizona [69][70][71]. This article should be improved, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos, gbooks has a lot of information, while very little is in online format, there is plenty of print information to indicate his significance and notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...one of the reasons why this wasn't receiving attention is probably because the Alerts bot for WP Mexico wasn't activated, so the banner on Talk page didn't prompt an Alert at the project for the AfD. I've fixed that. I've also dumped 4 refs in. We need to check Spanish sources before AfDing California history. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page was also missing a WP California tag, so even though WP California's Alerts were working it didn't pick up this AfD either. Please folks - before AfD check relevant language sources, check Talk Tags, check alerts are working. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work everyone. Happy to withdraw this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:25, 28 February 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 05:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Morton

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

Article has existed for nearly six years with no sign that it passes any of our notability guidelines. Article is about an amateur football player (from the pre-professional era) for whom I've searched on-line sources and only found one blog site that discusses (in two sentences) his career. Perhaps there are some off-line sources and the article can be re-created if and when some are found that would demonstrate notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, which outweighs any claim to footballing notability. Could consider a future redirect to 1929 FAI Cup Final if/when that article gets created. Giant Snowman 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with GiantSnowman PurpleMesa (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone please outline how the player "clearly" fails GNG? I don't see any evidence in this discussion that anyone has done any research? It seems to me that whilst the article is skeletal at best, that a player who appeared in at least one national cup final in a pre-professional era may very well be able to be able to fulfill GNG due to offline sources. I find AfDs like this to be quite unhelpful when the nominator essentialy concedes that they may pass GNG through offline sources, but apparently hasn't bothered to look for any, then the first comment (from an admin who really should know better) says it clearly fails whilst presenting no evidence to support this. Regardless of the subject's notability, from a procedural pov I think this discussion should be closed as "no consensus" and re-opened if necessary once some semblance of proper research has been done rather than a knee jerk reaction. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not possible that I could search offline sources in Ireland about this individual (and I suspect that is true of a large portion of WP editors). I've done thorough searches of online sources and found nearly nothing (so I simply stated the possibility that offline sources may exist - but expressed the view that it would be far better to re-create this article if such sources were located). What else is reasonable to expect in this situation? The article has existed in this "skeletal" state for nearly six years! I find your view of BEFORE to be most unreasonable. Jogurney (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you think is unreasonable. You have admitted a possibility that the player might make GNG and you've also shown you have not made, for whatever reason, a full attempt to source the article. My comments in this discussion have been neutral, I have not said whether the article should stay or go. However I feel that as you have admitted that you cannot perform the work needed to see whether the sourcing could be done I wonder whether it was appropriate for you to talk it to AfD. I don't recall seeing any attempt to discuss the matter at WP:FOOTY and attempt to find Irish users who might be able to assist. I may have missed that thread however. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 19 February 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) 11:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article pretty clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and in its present form fails WP:GNG as well. No prejudice to recreation if and when more significant coverage is located. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not meet GNG. Nominator appears to have made reasonable attempt at finding sourcing. Evidence needs to be presented that this person is actually notable. Eldumpo (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not being bothered to try to improve it doesn't indicate it deserves to be kept. Clearly no one has demonstrated its worth, and that is enough to delete it since no notability has been shown despite a long time during which opportunities to establish notability have not been taken. Experience would suggest that should notability be shown, the article would be re-created at a future time. It's not Wikipedia's goal to have articles on topics which may be notable, but no one is quite sure. No indication that WP:N is met. C 679 20:10, 25 February 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 merge to Seppuku. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jigai

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

This article, until I fixed it a few days ago, was filled with OR and unverified/inaccurate statements. Now, it consists of nothing more than a dictionary definition. The word "jigai" just means "suicide" in Japanese: it's slightly more archaic/euphemistic than the word "jisatsu", and I'm sure it has an interesting etymology, but this page really doesn't belong here. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article, and several other articles, previously claimed "jigai" was the female equivalent of seppuku. This is not, as far as I can establish, the case, although a number of English publications seem to have erroneously taken it as fact.[72] elvenscout742 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they're not reliable sources, but here's a few native Japanese speakers giving a few definitions that differ slightly in the details but all have basically the same gist. And none of them define "jigai" as "women of the samurai class performing ritual suicide by cutting their throats" or anything of the sort.[73][74][75][76] elvenscout742 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Looks like a simple dictionary definition to me. --DAJF (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: We may be getting a vote from the IP of a user who recently got indef-blocked for harassing and threatening me. With no explanation, he reverted my above-mentioned removal of highly questionable material.[77] If/when he shows up here, he might try to cite some of the poorly-researched works (apparently written by non-Japanese-speakers) as evidence in support of this article, but everyone please just ignore him. Honestly, if I knew more about this subject-matter, I probably would have moved the page to its proper name (I'm sure buke women's cutting their own throats has a special name) and made "jigai" a redirect, with a notice: "Jigai" redirects for. For general discussion of suicide in Japan, see Suicide in Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Changing !vote, see below Unfortunately, whether jigai correctly refers the suicide of samurai-class women or not, many sources have, as elvenscout points out, reported that it does. What is true and what is verifiable may be two different things. In this case, since a number of sources have stated that jigai is the female version of seppuku, that's what we should be reporting. If there are sources that specifically claim otherwise, they can by all means be added to the article to maintain balance. No comment on the possible Sasori sockpuppetry; I haven't fully investigated the claims yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge with Seppuku suit you? (The title of that article not being "hara-kiri" is another point that might be brought up...) Honestly, I don't mind Wikipedia mentioning this particular misunderstood word, but having an independent article on it is problematic because then we have people questionably adding the word "jigai" to the "See also" section of Jauhar, and so on... elvenscout742 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this funny note on Japanese Wikipedia: "It seems that in the west the word jigai has been erroneously taken to refer to the suicide-culture of Japanese women." (爆)

Anyway, I don't really have a problem with this material being included in Wikipedia, but I definitely oppose it having an independent article. The version of the article that existed until 10 February heavily implied that either Japanese historians in 2013 use the word "jigai" specifically to refer to samurai women cutting the arteries in the throats, or that people in medieval/early-modern Japan actually used the word this way. It is essentially just a mistake, and not a very widely-made mistake, considering the number of works in English that discuss this topic without calling it "jigai".[78][79][80][81] Therefore, giving it a subordinate section in the seppuku article, in which we explain the phenomenon, then state that some works by western authors have erroneously called this phenomenon "jigai", and then cite the actual Japanese dictionary definition of "jigai".

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I would like to point out that the user who is called elvenscout742 has serious issues with WP:OWN, see here. Wikipedia as far as I know my rules here is that it is not about TRUTH per se. It is about identifying reliable sources WP:RS and rewriting what they say from a WP:NPOV. I say all this as a completely neutral observer (my caveat, been here since 2004 but never had an account because I am not interested in the game) I only came here following a trail of amusing Admin events with elvenscout742 (as I do like a petty squabble). Just going through past events seems to suggest they are a WP:LAWYER who is less interested in the tenets of verifiable sources but just ensuring their viewpoints' win-out. I thought "I don't like" is meant to stop this sort of thing because as long as the source which the statement is based on is a reliable, third-party sources then its use is fair irrespective of "truth" or someone's opinion. 86.177.63.126 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take that personal attack back now. Who do you think you are? When have I ever claimed "ownership" of any article?? I was temporarily blocked because a disruptive user had been posting spam on numerous articles, and in order to stop him/her I accepted a mutual interaction ban. When the user realized that he/she could WP:OWN any article he/she edited, and effectively force me out of them, he/she immediately started editing in an area in which I have made hundreds of edits over the past 8 years, and he/she had never edited before. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!? Additionally, it would be nice if you actually contributed something to Wikipedia before showing up here to vote against me based on ad hominem argument. Since your only significant contribution to Wikipedia before posting on this AFI was to remove a sourced statement and replace it with an unsourced "update", for all anyone else here knows, you are a sockpuppet of the user who got me blocked in the first place.

I apologize to all present if this post seems somewhat aggressive. I am just getting kind of sick of anons with no edit history suddenly showing up all over the place and making personal attacks against me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, if you had actually been following what went on between me and Tristan noir -- and Yunshui and numerous others -- you would know that immediately after the above-linked block post about a dozen impartial users immediately voted to lift all restrictions on me and place harsher restrictions on Tristan noir.[82] There has never been any community consensus that I have WP:OWN issues or that I have done anything wrong. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@86.177.63.126: as Keep !votes go, ad hominem accusations against the nominator rank pretty much at the bottom of the effective arguments scale. As my old gran used to admonish, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. And pass the gin, there's a dear."

@elvenscout742: I understand your frustrated response, but chill; just about every editor and admin working in Japan-related areas is now aware of the problems you're having, and no-one's going to take such accusations seriously. Even those of us who disagree with you are still capable of spotting a spurious argument. Shrug it off, DENY, carry on regardless. For what it's worth, I've got no objection to a merge with seppuku, and I can see the validity of your reasoning; I'm willing to consider changing my !vote but I'd like to hear what other editors have to say on the matter first. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thank you once again for the advice. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 February 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) 11:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to seppuku. Louis Frédéric does contrast jigai with seppuku, and Lafcadio Hearn mentions it as a variation of hara-kiri. I'm not aware of others who make a similar comparison or contrast, but a merge or at least redirecting to keep this history may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on the talk page, Hearn didn't speak Japanese, and who knows where he could have picked up the misconception the jigai means what he and others since him have claimed it means. No Japanese dictionary includes this definition, and the article has actually pointed this since Vapour's edit five years ago. Anyway, as I already said a merge is a good idea here, because we have a misconception that is fairly widespread, and while it doesn't deserve its own article (the fact that it doesn't actually exist means there is very little we can say about it) a merge with its parent topic seppuku works. I actually didn't bring my copy of the Japan Encyclopedia with me when I moved to Japan. I figured I wouldn't need it because I had come across a number of what I recall were errors in it. They may in fact have been unfortunate translations from the French. I've never read Frédéric in French, so I really don't know how good he was on Japanese history. I also can't seem to find Frédéric's original French version: was it called Encyclopédie du Japon? It's definitely not on Amazon -- all these books are too short to have been the ST for the Japan Encyclopedia the article cited...

The most depressing part about this, though, is that while this misconception has apparently been around for over 100 years, it's entirely possible that the majority of sources written on the subject since 2005 were actually based on Wikipedia...

elvenscout742 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In two minds, merge or expand/retitle - on the one hand this dicdef is largely nonsense, in terms of real Japanese, but on the other hand it is notable nonsense celebrated/created/perpetuated within otherwise completely reliable (but not reliable about real Japanese usage) Western sources -.e.g. Jan Van Rij Madame Butterfly: Japonisme, Puccini, & the Search for the Real Cho-Cho-San 2001 Page 71 "..of the samurai class could not be sold by their family but they could sell themselves; and finally the act of jigai, suicide by a dagger or short sword piercing the neck, was.. " A similar case is the awful bụi đời article generated by a lyric in Miss Saigon where a French librettist's misunderstanding of a Vietnamese term ("street kids") has been redefined by Western popular culture as "the-Vietnamese-term-meaning-mixed-race offspring left behind by GIs" (sic - a meaning the word bụi đời doesn't have in Vietnamese). So what does one do? The sources exist, the subject bụi đời is notable, but notably wrong. Likewise jigai. Including into seppuku is one option as a new paragraph Female ritual suicide in Japan. However for categorisation purposes maybe keeping this article separate with a new title might be a better alternative. It depends, does one want an overweight paragraph on female seppuku inside the main seppuku article, or outside it? [Also this AfD should probably have been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History by listing or Talk tagging]. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, IIO, you seem to know more than most about RMs and the like: why has no one moved the page Seppuku to Hara-kiri or Harikari in accordance with WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME?? (I really want to put a winking or sticking-tongue-out smiley here to highlight that I'm joking, but on Wikipedia they don't look very good/clear, and I really don't want anyone to think I'm serious.) elvenscout742 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the lack of women's history notification: you'll notice that I removed the relevant categories and WikiProjects two days before AfDing the page,[83][84] I actually thought that the problematic OR/inaccurate information should be removed in the short term, the page could be moved to an accurate title (I still do think the Japanese had a word for this somewhere -- I just can't find it), and then the information/WikiProject coverage and so on could be restored and put in its proper context. I apologize if this is not how I should have gone about it, but I really thought for a while that the article could be saved if I completely overhauled it. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Hara-kiri" has plentiful sources saying in black and white "this is a wrong name" and discussing why it was used at length - there aren't plentiful lexical sources saying jigai or bụi đời are wrong, just sources giving the real meaning.

The maximum of project tags should be present when any action picked up by Alerts is considered. That's the whole point of Alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding alerts) I know that. That is why I apologized for having removed the WikiProjects, categories and stub tags prematurely. My point was not that WikiProject Women's History should not be informed, but rather that it was probably my fault that they had not. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding hara-kiri) I also know that. That is why I needed to lampshade the fact that I was making a corny joke. But I was also referring to a recent tendency on a number of RMs to interpret WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE to mean that if something is commonly known by an incorrect name in English, we should still use that name even though we know it's incorrect. ;) elvenscout742 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I know, no problem. (2) The problem lies in the recent edit history of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE as much as intepretation, personally I'd like earlier versions restored. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, I found references about this quite easily.Darkness walks (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the above discussion. Everyone is in agreement that references for this subject exist, and the phenomenon of samurai women cutting their throats as a form of ritual suicide may well have existed in medieval/early-modern Japan. The problem is that no reliable specialist sources on Japanese history refer to the phenomenon as "jigai" (which just means "suicide" in general). We are discussing what to do about this issue. I didn't comment on IIO's second proposal of expanding and renaming; either a merge to Seppuku or a renaming to Female ritual suicide in pre-modern Japan (or something) would be a fair solution to the problem. However, keeping the article as it was before I removed the contentious material would mean we have an inaccurate and self-contradictory article, and keeping it as it is now would violate WP:NOTDICT. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of what seems to be convergence of various opinions above, I suggest one way forward would be (1) first move jigai to Female ritual suicide in pre-modern Japan as a place-holder title, and THEN, after a bit of sourcing and copyediting, to see whether it justifies a standalone or should be merged with Seppuku. A brief sourced mention of "jigai" (sic) can be in a lower para as "in popular Western sources" or something. How does this suggestion address the impass? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update - a very cursory look immediately indicated a staggering number of sources when jigai was removed from search (this suggests that jigai is not WP:PRIMARY for this article by any means), I have added 2 from history and 2 from film books into the article as an example. Thoughts? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support IIO's updated proposal. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and possibly merge after rewrite, per In ictu oculi. I think that resolves the issue rather well, good idea. The proposed title's a bit clunky for my liking, but I can't think of anything better right now. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support In ictu oculi's proposal to temporarily rename the article and reassess the content. Personally it looks as though what useful information there is could be merged straight to the Seppuku article, but I suppose there is no need to rush this. --DAJF (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or at least concur with in ic ictu ocli - The overall article is both inaccurate and pointless. The term is gender-neutral. In JA Wikipedia it redirects straight to the general article on suicide as pointed out multiple times because there is nothing in Japanese that could possibly see it as a stand-alone article unless it was some sort of list. This doesn't even address murder of children (mothers killed their children before themselves) which was not unusual in such cases.

For what it's worth, the method of death for females was actually a straight thrust with blade upwards under the chin through the windpipe, as depicted in Japanese popular culture (for recent example, Shigurui (シグルイ) comes to mind). The other method was binding ankles together, placing the blade point on top of the heart and then falling on the blade. But these were just accepted techniques for 'proper' suicide, in vast majority of cases mother and children were killed by a male relative, usually father, in role as kaishaku.

Most Westerners specializing in this content suffer from either linguistic handicap (in Japanese) or great distance from source material and the academic community in Japan (Turnbull). There is far more useful source material in something out of Gakken than any of these borderline references in the article, which have a ridiculous, idealized version of Japan from the Muromachi Period onwards. If these references carry over, Hearn, Frédéric et al need to be referenced in terms of the Western perceptions of Japan at the time rather than as inviolate modern sources. Jun Kayama 20:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Seppuku. Reasoning stated by others above is sufficient. —Zujine|talk 10:05, 27 February 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) 11:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Leader

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

does not meet WP:ANYBIO Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The actor's roles according to IMDB have been minor. No indication that any of the inclusion criteria for entertainers is met. -- Whpq (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:23, 20 February 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. While numerous editors made arguments that it was notable and covered by enough sources to exist as an article, the stronger arguments were made by those who argued that the current contents were unfixably non-neutral. Because sources exist on this topic, editors are welcome to create a new article on this topic, but they absolutely must be sure to avoid any appearance of bias and treat all sides equally, both in the text and in the title of the new article. — Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

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

Fundamentally half of the article is a WP:CFORK of the largely unrelated 2004 unrest in Kosovo, 2008 unrest in Kosovo and Organ theft in Kosovo, while the rest is composed of a WP:NOTNEWS list of various dubious incidents which only have in common that Serbs were allegedly involved. In fact, one mentions a conflict between Serb officers and Albanians and another the destruction of Serb tombstones, although the source explicitly says that the police ruled out "ethnic motives". In conclusion, the basic premise of the article is based on the fact that "something" Serbian (ranging from headstones to Serb police officers) was involved in alleged and non-alleged unrelated events with unrelated causes and motives, thus all of them can be grouped under an all-encompassing article about "persecution".

As a sidenote, if you do happen to take even the slightest interest to review this AfD, please do so whether you agree with my assessment or not as many of these AfDs are plagued by organized tag-teaming (often, users that haven't been active for many months or even years are notified via email and turn these discussions into votestacking competitions) — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inevitably a POV exercise. A coatrack, a laundry list... I'm sure there was violence against ethnic Serbs in Kosovo in the aftermath of the ~~ethnic cleansing~~ genocide attempted there; this is not the way to address that topic, however. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nonsense. Not to mention your deep POV about this subject, but the fact that you find this violence non important for the encyclopedia. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of sources about explicit persecution of Serbs in Kosovo. If this is controversial subject, that does not mean it should be deleted, but fixed in line with wiki guidelines. About this tag-teaming comment, i can in advance list traveling circus users that will vote to delete this article, and not per article quality, but per personal national agenda. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant issue occurring in modern-day Kosovo. There are numerous sources in Serbian, English and other languages that ascribe to the violence and mistreatment that Serbs and their relics and monuments in Kosovo face today. 23 editor (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting that you two came to the AfD in such a manner and with such personal attacks against obviously unrelated and impartial editors with no "national" WP:COI. That being said, no irrelevant events that simply include in some cases just the word "Serbian" and aren't linked by the sources can be grouped under the term "persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:SYNTH in violation of NPOV. Title with obvious POV issues is backed up by lede that has 2 clearly unreliable sources, 1 source that actually partially contradicts article (indicating that Serbs get preferential treatment over Roma and others then receiving positions meant for minorities), and finally one reliable source that is completely unrelated to the topic of "persecution". Sections from 2010 and onwards are also clear case of WP:NOTNEWS.--Staberinde (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; serious NPOV issues, just used as a coatrack. Whitewriter's remarkable "i can in advance list traveling circus users that will vote to delete this article" outburst further underlines the problem of entrenched us-versus-them nationalist mindsets in this area. Part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indicative of the votestacking mentality of these AfDs is that as soon as someone provides a view about the AfD, !keeps "happen", but after a favorable "numerical status" is established no further !delete comments or even replies are added to the discussion. Of course as soon as that changes again !keep votestacking occurs.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Honestly, persecution of Serbs in Kosovo has been a recurring problem for decades now. This article does not accurately reflect that. In fact, the content of the article is problematic and does in fact restate information already found in other articles. If this article were to accurately depict the topic at hand throughout the decades, then I think this article has A LOT of potential. A good starting point is a survey conducted by SANU between 1985-1986 found here that depicts the discrimination faced by Serbs, and Montenegrins alike, in the 1980s pre-Kosovar independence. This survey is used in the Montenegrins of Kosovo article already, however, the article does not use much of the survey's content, if at all barely. On another note, the survey does include pretty useful information. We must also not forget the fact that Albanians, too, were persecuted in Kosovo. Just my two cents worth. --Prevalis (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As is this article looks more like a list than an encyclopedic article, however its topic is notable. I think that the right way is to improve this article by adding scholarly view of the history and current situation instead of non-notable news-like content. Deleting the article would not make it easier. Alæxis_¿question? 10:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine in principle; but in practice, attempts to reform the article have been swiftly reverted. As long as an article exists at this title, it's doomed to become a one-sided laundry-list... bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been waiting for "scholarly view" over 5 years. It can be recreated then that scholarly view finally shows up, if it ever does. There isn't really anything in current content that deserves preservation and isn't already in other wikipedia articles.--Staberinde (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. a lot of material are listed only here, and nowhere else in wiki. While some others are only introduction to the main article subjects I have expanded the article a bit more, with rock solid international reliable sources addressing this abuses and attacks toward Serbs. @Bobrayner All neutral reformations will not be reverted. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your expansion of the WP:NOTNEWS list that you have grouped under the term "persecution" is indicative of the non-scholarly content of the article. How can unrelated events, the participants of which are mostly unknown and their motives are also unknown be grouped under such a term?

Serb officials attacking and getting attacked by Albanian civilians,
headstones destroyed by people with "no ethnic motives",
events in which people from many different ethnicities including Albanians died,
people attacked by unknown assailants with unknown motives

were all grouped in a WP:NOTNEWS POV hodgepodge with the pompous headline of "Persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be serious. If Kosovo police proclaim that attack was not ethnically motivated, that means NOTHING after we all know their role on Kosovo. They are there, watching. This is nothing else then ethnically motivated attack to destroy and persecute everything Serbian on Kosovo. Dont think of us here as an idiots. They attacked that monument only because it was Serbian! --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Your treatment of the AfD and these topics in general is indicative of the issues that bobrayner mentioned. Personally, I'm interested neither in such debates ("we" vs. "them") nor discussions where sources are ignored with "this is nothing else than" labels and irrational groupings. (Btw the "connection" of the removal of a Yugoslav WWII monument by civilians in retaliation to the removal of the Presheve monument by Serb state structures with "persecution" is lost to me and apparently to the sources since they didn't report any "persecution"). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that it is lost to you, i didnt even expect it to be different. Monument of terrorist organisation in Serbia was moved, while 100 monuments across Kosovo was mischievously and tactically destroyed. In that "retaliation system", in the past almost 15 years, this article state to us that it was always more then retaliation. As it is now. Also, please, stop excluding your self from "we" vs. "them". You may speak about that to someone else, who was not here in the past 8 years of your accounts and editing. --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been around wikipedia since 2005. That is definite "upgrade" given that the last time you accused me of sockpuppetry you only included me as a second possibility below bobrayner[85]. Which 100 monuments were destroyed, by whom, how are they related to each other and who has grouped them under "persecution"?.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:20, 3 February 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 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Persecution of Other Races in Kosovo, or something similar to that - this is a controversial subject, yes, but it is a notable one, based on the sources in the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Serbs of Kosovo. I did a Google search on the phrase "persecution of" across the Wikipedia web domain (Google query link). It would appear that articles about the persecution of some group largely deal with religious persecution; Wikipedia articles about the "persecution of" one ethnic group by another ethnic group or nation seem to be quite rare. As others have pointed out, "persecution" is non-neutral terminology (WP:NPOV), especially when used outside its traditional domain of religious discrimination. Renaming the article would be one solution, but it would appear that substantial overlap already exists between this one and Serbs of Kosovo, so in my opinion, a merge would be a better solution. Moreover, as it stands, the article in question is basically a list of incidents; a merge to Serbs of Kosovo would place these in a broader context for the reader. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a laundry list of news incidents elsewhere doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. The section Serbs of Kosovo#Recent attacks on Serbs in Kosovo is just as bad as this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually much of the content was written and copy/pasted in those two articles by the same user.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is inherently non-neutral, and the content of the article is a list of incidents reported in the news media and synthesised into an article by Wikipedia editors with no independently reliably sourced indication that they are part of a pattern. It would probably be possible to create a neutral article about ethnic conflict in Kosovo, but I don't see anything in this article that would make a good start to such an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It exist a lot of sources (also independent form Serbian sources, a lot of international sources from Germany, USA, England, Italy, Spain, Russia ect. ) about persecution and expulsion of Serbs and other non-Albanians like Gorani people, Romani people, Bosniaks and Montenegrins in Kosovo since decades, also during the WW2 ect. It is part of the history, a very relevant issue occurring in modern-day Kosovo also, and important for an encyclopedia. And why should it be delate? We had some weeks ago the destruction of Serbian graves and burning crosses, and a burned chapel in Kosovo. I can not understand it why should this article be delate and other articles with the same topic and the same weight remained. Honestly, why there is a double standard here? If that sounded what Wikipedia is? Surely not. Is a tracked or distributed Serbian child worth less than an Albanian? or an Albanian as a Serbian? Or an Jewish child less then an Arab child? They are all worth the same. And this issue should be treated as such and not only the Albanian side, also the Gorani, Serbs, Ahskali, Romani, Bosniaks, Montenegrin side ect. was also victims or persecuted since decades. And If this is controversial subject, that does not mean so far that it should be deleted. In addition, the name also should not be changed, because most victims from the non-Albanians was absolute mostly Serbs. Numerous sources exist to this subject, and this will make it possible to write an independent and good articles who will include all wikipedia rules. 100% keep--Nado158 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content should be reviewed. Sources do mention persecution of Serbs and others in Kosovo.--Zoupan 03:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting that two more Serbian users come together to offer their !keep without of course sources that connect any of the article's content or policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I respond in your language. Quite interesting that you as Albanian want to delate the article, better to cover these events or to disguise. Try someone of us for example to delete the persecution of the Albanians? No. How do you know if I am Serb? Only when someone is not of the opinion of an Albanian, he is immediately a Serb or what? There is nothing worse to be Serb or Albanian or whatever. For you as Albanian its normal to delete the article abut tracking of non-Albanians in Kosovo, but at the same time for you its "interesting" that non-Albanians, especially Serbs, try to argue against it?Please stop with your double moral. This is not Albanopedia or Serbopedia or Romanopedia ect, its Wikipedia. We have a lot of sources and your argue that the sources connect with policies is weak. After your statement we should the 9.11 attack and their victims, and the background put into question or delate, because there are political backgroud? 100% Surely not. We will work all together to improve the article. For this we need time and not a deletion.--Nado158 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some users above have stated its issues clearly. The article is a FORK and with POV title and falls also within NOTNEWS. Efforts for improving have failed and there is no point on keeping it anymore. I would ask parts to focus on the issues not ethnicity. There are always two sides of the story, that's why we have wiki rules. This article should be deleted accordingly. Aigest (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,how do you write, there are always two sides of the story, that's why we have wiki rules, but why should be delete this side of the story??? It should be improved but not delated.--Nado158 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These types of pages simply serve to entrench nationalist propaganda and intense POV's. Wikipedia at its best does the opposite. This page is patently non-neutral and simply polarizes ethnic divisions within the region. The fewer of these sorts of pages the better.Epeos (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well over half of the sources are international sources. Nationalist propaganda because its handled about prosecution commited by Albanians? Would all this victims be Albanians you would vote as Albanian for the remain of this page right? it this not double moral? Prosecution, ect., of Albanians may exist everywhere but not about non-Albanians? This is neutral?This page is abolut not POV. You should perhaps read again the real meaning of the term POV. All these sources are POV right? But the same sources be used on pro-Albanian side there is suddenly no POV?come on. What polarizes the ethnic divisions within the region is suppression of pages, or the cover-up from pages, which are from the other side of the story, the non-Albanian side. You wrote, the fewer of these sorts of pages is better? And exactly that is absolut not neutral and have a puff of propaganda, and besides this, this is POV. This page is not an invention, also not the events, the background and the murdered people, the prosecution of the non-Albanians ect ect. This is not noot Porpaganda. Propaganda are not things which are based on true events.--Nado158 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in my humble opinion, these sorts of polarizing editorial pages (e.g. persecution of non-Albanians or "persecution of Albanians") are not particularly useful to wikipedia. But I that is just my own opinion.

The problem objectively with the page is that by definition it ONLY talks about persecution of non-Albanians. I'd have the same problem with a page that ONLY talked about the persecution of Albanians. The problem isn't with the source per se (though I haven't read through them all). Source problems could be fixed by the wikipedia community. The problem here is with the way the page is structured. The page is it inherently non-neutral as a stand-alone full fledged page. If this content must be included it should be a section of a page on human rights abuses during the Kosovo war (per Irondome's suggestion) but frankly all of these "lists of persecution" from the Kosovo War appear in so many other articles on wikipedia (see e.g. List of Massacres in Kosovo War, Kosovo War, War Crimes in Kosovo) that repeating the same information here ad nauseam (and in an inherently selective manner) seems redundant, exhausting and serves only to further one interest over another. I'd have the same objections about a page devoted exclusively to Albanian victims of Serbian war crimes. (ps I don't understand what you mean by Albanians may exist everywhere but not non-Albanians. So to the extent I haven't addressed that... sorry.) and thanks. Epeos (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's the point. You can not on one side where it exclusively to the pursuit of blacks going to require, installed persecutions of other peoples like Indians . There are other sites separately for this. This page is about this topic here. Your own mind, I can understand very well, but Wikipedia is a enceclopedyc page. You and I have no influence on world events, and when they arise, they will be reported here, whether it is an earthquake, a war, or sports. I wish we could have no material to write negative or such sad things like this. I wish there were no victims on all sides, no dead Serbs, Albanians, etc., but we can not change, unfortunately. Of course there are some overlaps with the Kosovo war, etc, but most things have happened until after the war. Much is not available in other articles. And much of what still could be added there is also not present. On the contrary, exactly the deletion of this page would serve only to further one interest over another. We have for example pages and articles devoted against Serbian side, where mentioned only one side, the anti-Serbian side, where only mentioned Serbian war crimes, but not the other war crimes against Serbs and other people. We have other examples with other nations too. Against Germans, etc. etc. I support neutral pages, but sometimes the facts are clear and the remove would be not neutral. In any case, in Serbian, Albanian, American etc. You can not make from a perpetrator a victim, and vice versa. Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there are SO many pages that say the exact same information. I mean there is already a "persecution of Serbs" page! Can't you stuff all of this information onto that page? There is a "Kosovo War" Page and a "Kosovo" page. where crimes against serbs are voiced. There is a "list of massacres in Kosovo" page. There is a "Kosovo war crimes" page. There is a "Serbs of Kosovo" page. All contain reiterations of the same information. Do we really need yet another one? And one with such a small (and one sided) scope? We don't have a "persecuction of Native Americans in Illinois" page. Instead we have a page about Native Americans which describes their persecution and includes a section about Illinois among other places. So that's the argument for shuffling this "page" into a section on another page.

But the second argument I see voiced here is that the page itself is structurally bias. I mean, look at the title of this page! "Persecution of Serbs and non-Albanians in Kosovo???" i.e. persecution of anyone who isn't an Albanian??? There are no pages (that I know of) that read "Persecution of Jews and all non-Germans during WWII" There are no pages that read "Persecution of non-Serbs in Kosovo." or "Buildings that are not neo-classical in Chicago." The title defines the subject negatively (i.e. it defines the absence of a thing rather than defining a thing) In doing so with a race of people it explicitly excludes an ethnicity central to understanding the conflict it describes. In my opinion this "page" should be renamed for what it actually is: "Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo" and it should be include as a section under the Persecution of Serbs page. The attacks on Jews can be added to List of Massacres or Kosovo war crimes pages or one of the other myriad pages that proxy as ethnic scorecards for this conflict. To create yet another page and to premise the reasoning for it upon the fact that "the other side has structurally bias pages" is an argument which fails to hold water.Epeos (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true that there are so many sites that say exactly the same. On the contrary. Of course, there are other articles about other ethnicities. E.g. the persecution of the Jews. And to this subject, there are many different sides + the main page. How do you see it going. And here is the topic for the persecution of Serbs in Kosovo.--Nado158 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added attacks on Jews. Source from the Jüdische Zeitung--Nado158 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How can an article such as Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars (yes, the title is NPOV but the content is basically a narrative plus a list of exclusivelly Serbian atrocities) exist but can´t this one? FkpCascais (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But surely two wrongs don't make a right! If there is a problem with the Serbia page, then address it on its own merits. The answer must not be to create another inherently bias page!Epeos (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suggest title "Human rights abuses in Kosovo". Then let the material offered stand or fall with community consensus.Irondome (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added also informations by a report from Amnesty International--Nado158 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new attack was today, two Serbian childrens was injured by a bomb attack on a Serbian house--Nado158 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added in this case sources from the U.S . Salon Media Group--Nado158 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added also sources from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, BBC, and imporved some links.--Nado158 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:NOTNEWS means nothing for some users here. I support the title Human right abuses in Kosovo proposed by user Irondome. At least, we get rid of POV title and enter more materials on human rights abuses by every side in Kosovo. That seems more NPOV. Aigest (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article at Human right abuses in Kosovo is certainly viable, although it ought to have very different content, and the journey there (from the current content) is likely to be a bumpy ride with lots of reverts. If people really want a Human right abuses in Kosovo article I would argue that it's better to start one from scratch. But if somebody took away the "delete" option and left us with a choice between status quo and an article at this new title, the new one would obviously be an improvement. bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page handled about the pursuit of non-Albanians in Kosovo, because several ethnicities (Serbs, Roma, Ahskali, Bosniaks, Gorani, Jews, Montenegrins ect) were or are attacked by Albanians, which has increased notably since the disputed independence of Kosovo. The rename of the article in Human right abuses in Kosovo is for these items incorrectly, because this is about no-Albanians, and the new headline of this page would not reflect this. If the name must be changed, which I personally can not understand, because there are also other similar items with such NAME, then (i think) it should be named Persecution of non-Albanians in Kosovo, although its also would not reflect the topic of the page, because 90% of the victims ect are Serbs. Because of this i think the current name of the page is absolut right.--Nado158 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current title is a magnet for all sorts of trouble, edit warring etc, Nado. Human rights abuses in Kosovo I still think is less problematic as a title, and anyway the material and the weight of number of attacks and ethnic breakdown of victims etc could be easily accomodated in the text, providing the evidence meets consesnsus. In that sense the title is irrelevant. Irondome (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, there are cases where Albanians are/were persecuted by Serbs in Kosovo, but they aren't as widely...promoted. One must understand that this issue of persecution is not one-sided as has been perceived from this debate. --Prevalis (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indeed there are "grey areas", a universal phenomenon, and a part of our bleak record as a species. Which is why I am treading very carefully here.Irondome (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject, good article, well sourced. Foodsupply (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Foodsupply was blocked as a sock of Oldhouse2012. bobrayner (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Foodsupply. What was your previous account, and is that account currently under a cloud for disruptive editing on topics in the southeast Europe? bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. The same holds for Epeos or not? The rules are the same for all "new" users.Thanks--Nado158 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that question is only for editors that he disagrees with. All "my side" SPA accounts should not be disturbed. Quite obvious... :) :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've never had a previous account. I am brand-spanking new to wikipedia and seem to have run naively directly into the buzzsaw of the balkans.Epeos (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O, please, stop. In your eight edit you cited POV wiki guideline, and in you 15th opened a referenced report on WP:BLP/N. We are not idiots. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for your personal agenda, it should be dealt with on other place then this. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. and for what its worth accept my apologies. Still, I'm not a sockpuppet and you shouldn't attack the sincerity of my edits and comments. Foodsupply was in fact blocked becasue he was Oldhouse2012 who was in fact blocked for being disruptive. So bobrayner was exactly right.Epeos (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, Epeos, but I suspect that you are sockpuppet too and only investigation can prove that you are not. Since administrators do not allow me to have account, somebody else can open investigation about Epeos? I suspect that sockmasters are either ZjarriRrethues or Bobrayner. 200.192.255.146 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: 200.192.255.146 was blocked as an IP proxy of Oldhouse2012. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why don't they let you have an account?? Is it because you've abused the system a little bit? what a bummer man. I'm still not a puppet though. I'll open an investigation on myself if that would make you feel better just so people stop using it as an excuse to avoid substantive discussion... (but I don't actually know how to do that yet.)Epeos (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly well sourced, it is absurd to suggest that the incidents are not related to each other or not part of the same campaign, and in response to Carrite's remark on 27 January 2013 - the article is based on atrocities committed after and during the Kosovo war, though in reality acts committed against non-Albanians (not just Serbs) in addition to ethnic Albanians not sympathetic to the independence movement date back far before 1998. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well sourced & there is a chronological sequence and consistency among the incidents described. They doesn't seem unrelated to eachother.Alexikoua (talk) 09:19, 9 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Irondome and Aigest (as far as I know, two relatively uninvolved users amongst a lot of names I recognise from this corner of WP), this article is currently a bizarre aberration which runs against a shopping list of WP policies, including WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, WP:POVTITLE, WP:SYNTH etc etc. Looking at its editing history and comments above, there is also a complete lack of understanding of WP:NOTNEWS by a number of involved editors, and there appears to be no hope of scholarly review to make it compliant with WP policies. It is a fact that different groups have committed human rights abuses in Kosovo against others over centuries. Given this article is relatively stable in its current un-Wiki form, I consider the only practical option is to delete it. I believe there would be merit in a neutrally titled Human rights abuses in Kosovo (19XX–20XX) article, but this article is not a basis on which such a NPOV article could be built. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "It is a fact that different groups have committed human rights abuses in Kosovo against others over centuries.", if you know about any of these then you are free to launch a page. If we were dealing with a list of isolated examples where it was simply the case that ethnic Albanians attacked non-Albanian targets then I too would have joined the "delete" campaign. However, persecution of any kind is a notable subject, in this case doubly so as the persecution is systemic: perpetrated by loyalists to one movement against persons deemed unfavourable to the cause. So the "this is nothing new" argument along with its partner "incidents are not related" are baseless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about addressing the commonly-held concerns about lack of compliance with WP policy? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about them and I do have one or two ideas but I need more time to propose them - sorry this post is void of more information, I've edited a bit too long and it's nearly 4am here in the UK. As soon as I return I will endeavour to explore new avenues taking all arguments into account. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, most of these incidents have not been linked to each other, have not been grouped under the term "persecution" or a similar term by the sources and most of them don't even have proven or alleged culprits and motives. Since the AfD, basically every single case that has involved Serbs in Kosovo (even when later the perpetrators were proven to Serbs that had engaged in criminal activities for personal reasons) has been added in this WP:NOTNEWS list including ...graffiti spraying.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 46 sources to support every statement, so the only reason I see for outright deletion is a sorry attempt at denialism by the "Delete" lobby. This article has never sat comfortably with Albanian editors and yet most fail to spot the connection with all these incidents: it is not a charge sheet printed to list every attack on a non-Albanian but an article on a real issue. It earns the status of persecution not because of the behaviour of the perpetrators but because of the lax attitude of their supposed authorities with much of the felony itself having links to the very top. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be 46 sources that mention incidents but they aren't grouped under persecution or labeled as such by the sources. Of these incidents most have no convictions, no suspects and no attributed motives, thus there's a gross POV and OR when you assume without evidence the basic premise this WP:NOTNEWS list has been built upon i.e. ethnicity-motivated crimes that occur in an organized manner. For example, a story about a Serbian couple that returned in Kosovo in 2004 and was killed in 2012 was added[86]. However, the source explicitly says that the police still have no suspects and nobody has been arrested yet.. Where is the premise that this was a hate crime that belongs to a wider series of events that constitute persecution based on? No suspects, no motives and no arrrests. Essentially, every incident that has occurred in Kosovo and has included Serbs has been interpreted as a hate crime that is part of a wider persecution.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mere coatrack of unconnected news reports of bad things that have happened to (mainly) Serbs in Kosovo over a long period. Where are the sources that link them together? Where are the sources that say they are part of a wider program of persecution? Listing them in this way, without sources that say they are linked or part of a wider scheme is pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. And there is no "delete" lobby. There is a "WP policy-based" lobby and an "ignore WP policy so we can keep our coatrack" lobby. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a WP policy-based lobby, the other is a pure denialist faction, and these opt to delete the artcle. It's funny how each says "delete" yet nobody proposes how we deal with an article with statements supported by 46 sources. But don't take my word for it, ZjarriRrethues hit the nail on the had with his last post: "no suspects, no motives, no arrests". Who is responsible for investigating and solving crimes? The de facto authority and we all know who this is. Only people with their head in the clouds can believe that life in Kosovo for non-Albanians is marvelous and they have full state protection. The earliest examples on the article pertain to KLA-based activities and still no motives - and some prate that this does not amount to persecution. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having no sources you consider this a legitimate article because "only people with their head in the clouds can believe...". That sounds a lot like many WP:TRUTH arguments that are often heard in AfDs. Btw if you removed all similar items[87] from that incoherent news list, you'd be left with a stripped-down WP:CFORK of some articles I mentioned in the original filing of the AfD. For example, a very unfortunate story about two Serb children that were hit by a grenade in northern Mitrovica about two weeks ago has been added. The three sources again mention no suspects and no motives, while it's been made clear that The police spokesman could not say if it the incident was ethnically motivated.. The next day a suspect was detained who in fact was a Serb who was in conflict with the family of the two children. Not only is there no hint of this incident and many others being ethnically-motivated attacks that is also linked to many others and grouped under an organized scheme of persecution but there is also a suspect. Of course, when I removed[88] the incident I was reverted by Nado.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example you present doesn't belong to the article, and I admit there are many listings which can be removed. I believe the article can be trimmed and it may be that there is very little left. From one perspective I can see the forking matter, from the other (the vantage point of Serbs) I can see there is an issue whereby one cannot feel safe. Irrelevant examples definitely need to go. Once we have done this (and I'd like to take part in the pruning operation), it may then be worth every editor here re-assessing where we go. Merge? Rename? Delete? Keep? Split among three extant articles? There are many options but a clean-up of the existing page is certainly in order. I don't recommend any new examples be added for the time being. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ZjarriRrethues...The Serb was released because there was a misunderstanding. I can show you sources. Also, the family has criticized his arrest and has rejected accusations that he was the perpetrator.--Nado158 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still best not to include it for the time being. Several of the examples are weak cases of systemic persecution. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG DELETE. Per WP:CFORK, per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:NPOV. Never had I read such utter garbage and s total unconnected pile of pathetic Serbian propaganda as this article. All of the examples are speculation, sourced by Serbian media, and most don't even know who the killer/abuser even was. There is no evidence of persecution. The Republic of Kosovo police is multi-ethnic like the Kosovan state. Ethnic Serbs are welcome to join that force and live a normal Kosovan life, they are allowed political representation and they enjoy autonomy in the north. They have the right to vote and to work. They are allowed to travel to Kosovo with Serbian passports, so where on earth is the so-called "prosecution"? I am amazed the article has lasted as long as it had but now it is time to wipe it off once and forever. All of it's editors are well-known Serbian nationalists who push pro-Serb POV all of the time here. Kosovo 2008 Albania 1912 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Kosovo 2008 Albania 1912 (talk • contribs) sock of WP:DE vandal User:Sinbad Barron. [reply]

- Obvious sock puppet or SPA account, invited here off line by one of "Delete" users above... For more info, see contributions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WW, I agree. Very likely a SPA, certainly disruptive, and I would support a block. I am not familiar with the suspected sockmaster, so I can't speak for that. There seems to be widespread socking in Balkans articles (witness the recent disruption by Oldhouse2012), and we should all be keen to stamp it out. However, as I am one of those "delete" users you have referred to, I am offended by your suggestion that I might have invited a sock or SPA to !vote here. You are attacking the man, not the argument, which is always the tactic of the desperate. Either produce the evidence you have of the canvassing of the SPA/sock or strike your attack on the integrity of all of the users that happen to have recommended "delete". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - O, yes, he was invited here off wiki by one of the editors above. New socks appear only on invite. And yes, after 50+ of those, i know. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a place for improvement of the text, but there are no valid arguments to delete a sourced article on such a notable and well documented subject. Vladimir (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; serious NPOV issues. All of the examples are speculation, sourced by Serbian media, and most don't even know who the abuser even was. This is not an encyclopedian article. Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of group by another group. In Kosovo under Eulex you believe that exsist this! Ridiculous. Constitution of Kosovo is an example for the whole world. Kosovo's parliament have 20 MP from 120 are directly elected by the minority (Serbs, Turks, Bosniaks, etc.) adding the members of the minority can be elected directly by 100 other MP. In this case, could say that the Constitution of Kosovo discriminate the majority, Albanians. The minority in Kosovo is about 10% of the population, but have about 30 seats in parliament or 25 % of the parliment. Do you know a country where a minority is 10% and has so much power like Kosovo? Irvi Hyka (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are talking about is official publication and naturally it would be unprecedented to admit wrongdoings from a high level. The government of Bahrain claims fair treatment of all persons and groups but you will not be satisfied with that rationale if you spoke to the country's Shia population. There are many examples on this page which need to be removed and I am promising to do this very shortly, but like I said, from an administrative level - there is no persecution and no constitution can openly endorse this. On a grass roots level, matters are different. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, there would be reliable scholarly sources that says there is systematic mistreatment of Serbs by Albanians in Kosovo. All we have so far is a list of news articles. Where are those sources? Without them, this is just WP:SYNTH. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the cases confirm that non-Albanians and non-secessionist Albanians are subject to persecution. If "scholarly" means Noel Malcolm or Tim Judah or any other writer to plagiarise Rexhep Qosja then you will never find it. When a scholar is of Serbian origin then it is generally looked upon as POV. So a bulk from the list leaves readers with a choice: they either realise that quality of life varies according to ethnicity or they resort to denialism and pretend that life for Serbs in Kosovo is exactly the same as for ethnic Swedes in Finland. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

give me a break. Exactly which sources use the word "persecution"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ICTY as reported by Reuters for Haradinaj. The fact that he was acquitted is not evidence that it didn't occur, just a so-called 'lack of proof' that the actions were attributed to him personally. Obviously one needs proof of the atrocity before he can pursue suspects. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I certainly echo the concerns about the article being a coatrack and POV. The facts seem to have been crowbarred into fitting the conclusion. Dolescum (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot "crowbar facts to fit a conclusion", they are either facts or they are not. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Dolescum (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting link. It is not a case on this article though, some days ago it was worse before pruning began but we are rapidly running out of sections we can remove. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there seems to be a total of 44 sources covering about 15 years. The English Defense League caused more noted incidents than that, if memory serves me correctly, in less time.

The article attempts to portray violence in Kosovo as unidirectional against ethnic Serbs. News reports such as this Guardian piece cast doubt on that presentation.

Furthermore, this piece from the United States Institute of Peace seems to disagree with the precept guiding the articles title:

Independence generated excitement and celebration in Kosovo, but its Albanian population—about 90 per cent of the total—has refrained from violence against minorities. Despite provocations, Kosovars have not sought, as some feared they might, to chase Serbs from the new state. This correct behavior needs to continue.

So...yeah, it still looks like a coatrack of grievances which is best flushed. Dolescum (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) EDL is an opponent of the British regime and has no links to it. 2) Their activities in no way compare to the Podujevo bus bombing. 3) The earliest incidents in the article pertaining to the beginning of the UNMIK period (before and immediwtely after) are certified cases of genocide and that in itself goes far beyond persecution. So, best to flush facts? QED. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:TRUTH comment that really is typical of these AfDs. So far there are no sources that connect these incidents, group them together or even establish them as ethnic crimes given that there aren't any suspects or motives regarding most of them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has idiots running about, looking for people to harm. For example, the existence of David Copeland does not imply that there is systematic persecution of his victims. You'd also expect an instrument for the United States government to have noticed if this was going on. The fact you raise the matter of wartime atrocities is interesting, you seem to wish to focus on one side in isolation, when it is well documented that both belligerents in the Kosovan War committed unspeakable horrors. This reaffirms my conclusion that the article is merely a coatrack for grievances and should be flushed. Dolescum (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. government? Don't make me laugh. It sees what it wants to. In fact much of the equipment used to cause the atrocities by the "side in isolation" was provided by them. The U.S. turns it eye on a lot of things when the relevant regime serves them. Also I never said "wartime", the page itself has things going back to when the war was happening. The war officially ended with the Kumanovo agreement when FRY agreed to withdraw security forces but atrocities against non-Albanians - although stemming from the war - continued for some time. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're rejecting sources out of hand because they fail to agree with you. I see little further point in continuing to communicate with you. Dolescum (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the level of debating has been steadily deteriorating.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly a notable topic covered by reliable sources, the question only is if presently it should be contain as a section in another article. I think we should keep for now and revisit merging or otherwise coalescing information when energies calm down. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree this is certainly a notable topic covered by reliable sources. I also agree there is a place for further improvement of the text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article must surely violate just about every WP policy created, such as WP:CFORK, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH. The events depicted come from mainly Serb (unreliable) sources and blogs. They are not in any way connected to each other. Ethic Serbs have right of vote and the right to live in Kosovo, they have seats reserved in parliament and their language is joint with Albanian. Also the non-Serbs of Kosovo have never had cause for complaint. There have been dreadful classroom shootings in the US in the past years but you don't see an article called "persecution of schoolchildren in the US". The sooner this article is nuked, the sooner we can get on with a good encyclopedia. Keithstanton (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)— Keithstanton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - but change the title. The page itself is supported by multiple sources, including reports from OSCE and I can see no factual, neutral argument for keeping it. Obviously it has attracted a lot of heath, (I came here after being made aware of Keithstanton's massive edit warring at WP:ANI and his behavior is among the most disruptive I have ever seen at Wikipedia), and several editors from both "sides" would do well to step aside. While the page is well-sourced, the article is clearly POV. So I recommend keeping the page but changing the title to something along the lines of Human rights in Kosovo.Jeppiz (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for proposal

As far as I and everyone else to vote 'keep' is concerned, the article is fine as it stands. Some of the controversial material has been removed these past two days. Even so, there needs to be consensus and I can see that there are problems with the word "persecution" as no source groups every listing and categorises them as such. I see from the page history that on the day the page was created in January 2008 by a user now banned for editing without being logged in that several article names were tried. To all those who voted 'delete', how would you feel about this page moving to Attacks on minorities in Kosovo 1998-present? Comments please. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't coatrack this discussion as it deals with the AfD. That being said, your suggestion is again WP:NOTNEWS. (Btw don't expect that to be used to reintroduce various opinions as "new ones" to circumvent the relisting of the AfD) Ridiculous lists of incidents that mostly have no suspects and no motives are neither academic material nor can be grouped together under any kind of premise. There can be no such article simply becase various Serb editors over the years added all kinds of criminal activities that involved Serbs. To me, per the policies your suggestion sounds just as irrational as a suggestion for writing an article about List of X crimes that happened in Y in Z period--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I asked for eveybody's opinion amongst those to favour deletion, not just yours. I accept that you don't agree to the proposal so let that be an end to it. There are more editors than you to favour deletion and I would like all of them to have their say. I will remind you that you do not own this project page are not here to give other editors orders on how they steer the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal does nothing to change my opinion expressed above that this should be deleted, as it does nothing to address my concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phil Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Phil Bridger. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also with Phil Bridger on this Dolescum (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock puppet or SPA account, invited here off line by one of "Delete" users above.--Nado158 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is amusing. I'm sure you have some evidence that I'm a sockpuppet or an SPA, right? You'd be happy to share that, wouldn't you? After all, you'd not go around throwing baseless accusations without even checking my edit history, now, would you? So perhaps you'd like to share that with the rest of us? Dolescum (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it only, but sorry, it is not without reason. However, It's nothing personal. Maybe I'm wrong, mabe not, but it is allowed to check this. There are certainly admins they could check this. Thank you and regards.--Nado158 (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to WP:SPI, yes? My username doesn't seem to be listed there, curiously. I invite you to file a case or redact your accusations. Dolescum (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a accusations just a guess. I think, you must not dramatize it. Thank you and regards!--Nado158 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing opponents of sockpuppetry is a standard tactic employed by one side of this rather polarised debate. If you get accused of sockpuppetry just for trying to get rid of chronic pov-pushing, wear it as a badge of honour. bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this were my tactics, then I could this have may be learned from you, because you have used up above already with respect to the new user Foodsupply which has voted for a KEEP, while you ignored in the same moment new user Epoes who voted for a DELETE. So, I must think that you questioned only for editors that disagree with your opinion. If you get accused someone of standard tactic which you've previously used self, which badge you should wear then? Regards--Nado158 (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This adversarial approach is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please stop. The last time I tried reverting & reporting a sock who was supposedly on "my" side, your ally WhiteWriter simply declared that I was the sockmaster. Which demonstrates how reason, neutrality, and AGF are abandoned in the headlong rush to push serb nationalist POV on en.wikipedia. Please stop, Nado158. bobrayner (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you started with the adversarial approach. My ally? All my allies who disagree with your opinion? Bobrayner, I support reason ect. and we know it, all is Serb nationalist POV who you already said that, and in opposite all is pure Albanian engels truth right? However, we can now talk about 1000 years about this, so please stop it, let stop it. I interesst only for encyclopedic articles. My respect to you and best whishes.--Nado158 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who sees me as Albanian can only be viewing the world through a very distorted nationalist lens. I wouldn't mind if it were just on pages like this AfD; but there's lots of this crap in article-space too, which misleads readers. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bob. You are sailing pretty close to the wind here Nado. If you were accusing me of being a sock, like you have with Bob and Dolescum, you would be at ANI right now defending your actions in front of the community. Both Bob and I have reported suspected socks, all we have seen from you is a lot of mouth and no money. I suggest you back off and concentrate on addressing the legitimate concerns of editors, especially those that aren't fellow travellers here in Balkans articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I respect this Thank you.--Nado158 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this proposal does nothing to change my opinion expressed above.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the proposal as per Phil Bridger. Keithstanton (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock puppet or SPA account, invited here off line by one of "Delete" users above.--Nado158 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in favor that the site should be keep and i think that the title also should remain, but the proposal of Evlekis ist not bad, although the most victims are Serbs. I think in this moment all should remain. Thank you.--Nado158 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that most victims are Serbs. Reliable independent sources show that most victims of persecution in Kosovo are not Serbs. Personally, I dislike the encyclopædia being used as a platform for nationalist myths; it is unfortunate that not everybody shares this stance. bobrayner (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of the article is Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. Everyone is free to add instances where it wasn't always Serb. The page is not about the history dating back to earliest settlement which would cover centuries of Ottoman rule. To this end, even I am uncomfortable with examples from when the Kosovo war was happening. It should focus only only UNMIK-onwards because this represents the time Kosovo has been governed exclusively fom within. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about recent history. UNMIK counted 488 murders since June 1999, of which 161 were positively identified as Serbs and 197 positively identified as Albanians; this is a completely different story to what our article says, our article is dedicated to picking individual cases, and weaving them into a bigger story, whilst discarding cases which don't fit. Of course, it's quite arbitrary that the article only covers recent incidents, since there's no such restriction in the title; who made up that restriction? bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer to your question is the original author, now blocked so we can't interview him. The article history shows there were several suggested and tried names for the article before the current name was chosen. It is definitely a two-part episode since it begins from when the war was happening but apart from that there is nothing arbitrary: one location, perpetrator invariably symapthiser of regime, victims perennially suspected opponents. These three things weld the article's purpose far better than several pages that exist on WP which contain wildly estranged contents. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that doesn't belong in the article can be removed through normal editing methods. This is obviously a notable topic. The information is not all found in other articles either. The article has plenty of references for the information within it. Terrorists attacks, hate crimes, people pelting the returning refugees with stones and attacking their tent camps, etc. Documenting these help people understand history better. Dream Focus 11:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the article seems to be unimprovable due to relentless POV-pushing and bullying of opponents. Miniapolis 20:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good, sourced article... Smarkflea (talk) 00:13, 20 February 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) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there are many references in this article that are from reliable sources. However, these sources are used to make a non-WP:NPOV list that also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Given the immense amount of contention between some of the pro-Albanian and pro-Serbian editors here, including socking, accusations of socking, personal attacks, and miscellaneous uncivility, I doubt that this article could ever be neutral. Howicus (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw don't let the "abundancy" of sources lead you to conclude that the sources necessarily correspond to the text. Many have been misrepresented by a user who currently faces an WP:AE report. For example, In August 2005, two Serbs were shot dead and two injured when their car was taken under fire by Albanians during a tire change.[89], source:Two Serbs shot dead and two injured when their car is fired at.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not twist my things and please do not denigrate me. I've already added a new source which describes these things etc.Thank you.[90] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nado158 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 February 2013‎

Those are reasons to clean up the article through regular editing, we have lots of contentiously argued articles, we don't just delete them because they have problems. We clean them up. Insomesia (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has deteriorated with the addition of more misrepresented WP:NOTNEWS events. However, if we did remove all the unrelated incidents it would remain a WP:CFORK of other articles and a WP:NOTNEWS list-like article as there's no "persecution" grouping by RS of events or acknowledgment that there's an organized scheme that could be labeled "persecution".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the article has deteriorated then feel free to restore the page to its condition in January when you launched this campaign. It is the opinion of every delete-editor that the events are wholly unrelated, are redolent of everyday life in all parts of the world and that the events do not constitute persecution and the latter is based on a scanty yardstick which is that no source records every incident and deems it by that term. If you venture outside this area of editing you will find there are countless articles that link even more estranged subjects over a wider time-frame and across more parts of the world. The point is that one editor believes we are "straying from the topic" because much of the content belongs to Crime in Kosovo, a tiny article by comparison - yet it is an unequivocal and obvious fact that persecution is subordinate to crime, it is not as if you can "legally" carry out the sourced acts of the page somewhere. But the fact remains that certain groups in Kosovo do not live as comfortably as others. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A collection of news stories synthesized into a POV article. Edison (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Insomesia. The page has seen major changes since its nomination for deletion. These are likely to continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Evlekis. I think we all know your view, you have re-stated it over and over. It is unnecessary and confusing for the closing admin for you to jump in every time someone makes a comment you agree with. Please restrain yourself. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not here to admonish editors who don't share your view, the discussion has been dominated by a number of individuals but I see no requests for restraint in that direction. Confine yourself to the topic of the discussion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are you here to offer long polemics about the quality of life enjoyed by Serbs in Kosovo while trying to present their difficulties as a systematic campaign of persecution. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No? Then maybe I got the wrong end of the stick. If I am not supposed to visit those two points then what is the purpose of this talk? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The purpose of this talk is to ascertain whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. It is not a debate about whether Serbs and non-Albanians are persecuted in Kosovo, but about whether we have enough coverage in independent reliable sources saying that they are persecuted, which is not the same as a collection of news reports of crimes whose victims happen not to be Albanian. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honour among thieves I see. For your information, my position is based entirely on the sources of the article. The argument just happens to be stale, some editors say that these do not constitute persecution, others such as I say they do. Now when another editor - already to have posted several times himself - repeats the same old points but puts a new angle on them, I have every right to refute them. That is the purpose of this conversation. The editor who introduced this project has in the past tried to have the page removed through ordinary talk page proest, as indeed have many other of his associates. Since the project was launched, I have worked extremely hard to improve the page to the point that many of the statements which caused problems have now been removed and many removals are attributed to me. It is clear that the existence of this page upsets some people's preferred POV imbalance, it has nothing in the world to do with site guidelines - those are being used politically as a weapon, and as ever when this is so, they are being exploited to mean what people want them to mean. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the issue is not whether you or I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks that these cases amount to persecution, but whether independent reliable sources say that they do, for which no evidence has been presented. As regards "honour among thieves", you might like to note that the last time I remember taking part in the same deletion discussion as the nominator we were firmly opposed, so I don't see how that phrase can describe the situation here. You need to accept that not everyone is arguing from a sectarian nationalist point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last remark is correct, not everyone represents a "sectarian nationalist point of view" because I certainly don't, I do however suspect the delete-lobby to argue from that angle but that is not something I will discuss now. I am the only editor to both contribute to the article's content and remove from it what I felt did not belong. All the rest either pile on the text+sources (the keep-lobby), whilst the others do nothing but tag/dispute/remove. It wouldn't hurt the latter party to go out and actually look for things to improve the article for a change. However, it is clear to anybody that their minds were made up long before clean-up operations began: the rejection of a proposal to remove 'persecution' from the title certifies that this word was never the issue as has been claimed in all other sections of this talk. As regards "independent reliable sources", I see from the top of this project page that we have no sources for the claim of the title. I accept that there are very few but the idea that there is none is wild and subject to the tactical limited search ploy. A few sources to testify that persecution in Kosovo exists can be found, and knowing them from the onset helps with the wording:

But note when you deliberately cite a term verbatim, you get zero for more subjects than you think:

Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Peacemaker67, your behavior in simply editing to post "me too" content resembles barracking of other editors. Please desist, other editors are capable of reading what has been written without you repeating it at them. Dolescum (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the behaviour of any editor then you may report him via the correct channels. Your allegation of barracking is your own viewpoint, not a real issue. Speaking on which, perhaps you should read the first five words of your above statement back to yourself and then determine whether your post was necessary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:36, 23 February 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 07:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starhaven (Press)

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

Non-notable publishing company, article has no sources and gives no indication of notability - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability, does not meet WP:CORP. The COI editor who created the article apparently has no clue what constitutes a reliable reference. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly a longstanding small publisher with a decent diverse pedigree of well-received books. I've added what clearer refs I can find, but these are about the individual books themselves rather than providng detailed discussion about the publisher as such. AllyD (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the books it publishes are notable by virtue of reliable-source coverage, notability is not inherited, therefore the notability of the books doesn't say anything about the notability of the company, in the sense of how Wikipedia defines notability. If coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (not other Wikipedia articles, blogs, press releases, business directory listings, etc.) can be found, then the article could be kept, but I am not seeing such coverage as required by WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 21 February 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 (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Jason Flom) in violation of ban or block) by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)

PFTv2

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

While M.I.A. is obviously a hugely notable artist, this is not an official release by her but rather appears to be some sort of bootleg of her music made by a little-known producer on his own label. Struggling to find any evidence on the web that it even exists, let alone is notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article author has demonstrated a pattern of using Wikipedia as a publicity channel, and this is one more example. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This an unauthorized compilation and it should be deleted right away. Koala15 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax. Calabaza Republic does not exist; it is the figment of the imagination of a persistent sock puppeteer. (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horizontal Law.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 25 February 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Cristobal

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

Article appears to an autobiography of the editor and should not be an article, rather should be present on the user page Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 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. A7 Yunshui 雲‍水 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kavevarman

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

Article appears to be an autobiography of the editor, and should be present on the user page not as an article Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criteria A7. -XapApp (talk) 09:01, 20 February 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. No claim of notability (WP:CSD#A7), lacks context (WP:CSD#A1) - fails to identify the article's subject. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr Boys

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

The article lacks content and relevance and has no reference source, the lead is too short and there are grammatical errors Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criteria A7. -XapApp (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 February 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 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Bounds

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

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, as this person is only a county school board president and has not been widely covered in local media. It appears that this article was created as vanity. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The "Tax controversy" is local news. Location (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From a purely mechanical reading of WP:BASIC, [91] and [92], and arguably [93] are full newspaper articles about the individual that reach WP:GNG. I don't see this subject meeting the more specific notability guidelines, though, I don't see the awards as reaching ANYBIO 1, or POLITICIAN 1 or 2. The wording of POLITICIAN 3 suggests that perhaps BASIC might trump, though. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the third source, a 1978 article from the Toledo Blade, refers to the same Kathleen Bounds from South Carolina. But I have my doubts whether a local school board chair whose media coverage is a slow-news-day puff piece and whose awards were at local level meets wikipedia notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject appears to have received multiple mentions from non-primary reliable sources, however if taken in total, those mentions do not appear to pass significant coverage requirements per WP:GNG. There is the article from the Toledo Blade, but a two paragraph blurb is not something I would consider significant coverage. Therefore, given that the subject does not pass WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN doesn't even come into play.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 21 February 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) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PCMan File Manager

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

This software is not famous to the degree it would be found in an encyclopedia. disclaimer: I have used this software. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PCManFM is the standard file manager for LXDE, like Konqueror / Dolphin_(software) is the standard file manager for KDE, or Thunar for Xfce, or Nautilus for GNOME and so on. I don't see a valid reason for AfD. Toffanin (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fame isn't required for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it isn't a valid reason for deletion. I've added a couple of references to reviews by Linux Today and Unixmen to the article to help establish notability of the topic. With no valid criterion for deletion and with likely notability, I recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue with you, but a review from a blog called "Unixmen" typically does not warrant automatic entry to an encyclopedia. I will go further and say we should probably not have Wikipedia articles every time the Unixmen blog writes about a product. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair criticism. In the technology media there are a number of websites that I like to call "journalistic"; they are more than some random person's blog but less than a professional news outfit. I think Unixmen fits into that category of marginally reliable sources, in the form of a blog with a wide readership, but it is obviously a gray area and a somewhat subjective assessment on my part. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 21 February 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, AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs work but passes GNG. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:41, 27 February 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. Easy peasy. SNOW consensus to delete (speedily). Let's hope that this walled garden is utterly razed now. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boneheads (TV series)

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

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

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

...apparently this is part of a truly massive hoax campaign created by User:KuhnstylePro, both on Wikipedia and off (the "series" has its on Wikia, but....precisely zero news hits for the series+Disney Channel+the supposed creator. As far as I can tell this has been entirely WP:MADEUP, and doesn't exist at all beyond the "presence" KuhnstylePro has created for it. I'd simply tag the whole thing for G3, but given its spread, thought I'd put it here just in case I'm wrong (which I'd be really happy to be wrong about, but...I have very little doubt this is hoaxin'.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that apparently there really is a Hadley Hudson, who does, indeed, work in animation, but the content of his page here appears to be entirely part of the WP:HOAX. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I'm kinda skeptical about !voting to delete Hudson, but his page just seems to be part of the hoax. Per nom, I'm pretty sure the show a hoax, regardless, though should this source (from the main page) be considered trustworthy? Regardless, still definitely hoaxy. Zappa O Mati 05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Things like that indicate there's just enough truth at the core of the hoax to be curious (there apparently really was a short called "Bone Heads" in Random! Cartoons in 2008, for instance, although the now-indef'd Kuhnstyle changed its creator to Hudson...). Apparently that simple pair of facts (a Frederator short called "Bone Heads", and the existence of animator Hudson) were used as the basis for the creation of this hoax. Also, the part on Hudson's page about Wendy Yu? Unverifiable and apparently another hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also: category and template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We can't trust anything written by this user, and anything notable here will likely be rewritten by someone trustworthy. Nyttend (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unverifiable, and a hoax. 'Nuff said. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above - and good block. — Ched : ? 12:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in speedy delete as a hoax. Giant Snowman 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Amazing hoax. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all The TV series is blatantly bogus. I see a variety of Hadley Hudsons, which already makes me nervous: it's hard to imagine it's that common of a name, and I have to suspect that much or perhaps all of it represents hoaxing beyond our site. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 20 February 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 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recipes by ingredients

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

Non-notable app. Google search fails to find anything reliable. Having a high rating on Google Play, or having several downloads on Google Play is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I can't find anything other than the reviews on Google Play, which (like reviews on Amazon) don't count. It needs references to news stories and professional reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 February 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 07:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Joseph Crasto

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

The article fails to meet notability criteria per WP:MILNG and WP:BIO. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mid-ranking officer who won second level award for bravery in peacetime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, rather the info in the article kind of establishes non-notability.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 22 February 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 07:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brodus Clay & Tensai

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

Firstly, there are no official references to any such tag team; only wrestling moves are cited. Second of all, there has been no such announcement of the two being a tag team. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 03:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The duo is an unofficial tag team like International Airstrike. The duo may not be announced as a tag team officially but they work together in-ring very well. (Hansen Sebastian) 11:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Your reasoning is invalid. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page was tagged with CSD A7. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can CSD tag something at AfD (you definitely can't tag it after the AfD, aside from G4 if the previous discussion went to "delete"). But you can vote Speedy Delete here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have individual articles, but the tag team is only notable if there has been substantial inependent comment about the tag team. JohnCD (talk) 01:10, 26 February 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 07:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Leyshan

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

Single-source article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) — Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:RS, and WP:GNG, to name a few. Qworty (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have had a look for coverage, but can't see any indepth coverage in independent reliable sources that would bring it within WP:GNG --_nonsense ferret 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 February 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 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Run From the Cure

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

Article about nonnotable documentary. Only sources are three links to same site, which is both a primary source and not one that meets WP:RS criteria to be used at all, let alone as the only support to justify keeping the article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every time I thought I was finding something I could use as a RS, I'd discover that the source was a post by Simpson himself or merely one of many comments that were posted in other articles to spam for the movie. I did find one mention in a book, but the book is self-published and doesn't seem to be usable as anything other than a trivial source at the very most. Other than various primary sources, forum/article comments, and other things that are unusable as reliable sources, I don't really see where this is notable or ever will be.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 February 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 Deleted per CSD:G5—Kww(talk) 16:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabalaza Republic

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

no references, website is ambivalent in its content. this reads like a hoax through and through. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims in the article are hogwash, and it is asserted (falsely) that famous musicians are involved in this "vanity" music label. Reliable sources have ignored it, though they would certainly report those affiliations if any of this were true. "Vanity" may be the most truthful word in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:GNG & WP:BAND. No significant coverage of subject from non-primary reliable sources to indicate notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I'm very close to speedying as vandalism, but I'll let this discussion proceed for a while to see if any defense comes to light.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prior versions of this article have been created by known socks of Horizontal Law (talk · contribs). I am opening a new SPI based on this article's recreation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 25 February 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 05:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Fischer

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

Not notable, no reliable sources. Fails our notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sifu Fischer is the pre-eminent Wing Tsun practictioner in Australia. He's been profiled in many magazines and has published over 50 articles. He has notability if only Australia were in the 21st century as regards to online newspapers and magazines so his citations were more easily accessible. Any martial artist in Wing Chung or Wing Tsun would know or want to know who he is. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be online. If he's profiled in many magazines it should be easy to give them as sources. Just be sure the sources are reliable and independent.Mdtemp (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. Almost all of the sources are from his club, which is not independent. Many previous discussions have made it clear that rank has no bearing on notability. I'm willing to change my vote if notability is shown through reliable sources.Mdtemp (talk) 19:54, 19 February 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) 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apologies if this isn't the proper format to talk here. Fischer appears in Blitzmag quite a bit, which is the equivalent of the US BLack Belt Magazine. Here's a link: http://www.blitzmag.net/people/kungfu-taichi-qigong/69-black-belt-journeys. Not all of BLitzmag's articles are online. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also has "lineage," very important in gung fu. Several of his students have gone onward and upward. Link for Thommy Luke Boehlig , a martial artist and television personality in Germany who claims Fischer as his instructor: http://www.wingtsjun.com/Organization-Founder.1617.1.html. Martial artist and businessman "Fighternman" Fernandez also claims Sifu Fischer as his instructor. http://www.everythingwingchun.com/sifu-fernandez-wing-tchun-do-dvds-books-s/274.htm The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage is not important in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTINHERITED). The article you linked is a start, but it doesn't really talk about Fischer, it's him talking about ranks in his style.Mdtemp (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing to show this subject meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG since the article's sources aren't independent.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find the sources necessary to support the claims of notability and don't believe the article's sources show that he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 27 February 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 07:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanguinarian

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

Formerly a promo piece, now just a bad article for a non-notable film. You'll find a few hits on the internets from local papers and that's it. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a bit of a cleanup to give it more of a chance and added one source, but that's all I could really find. There's nothing out there to show that this film is or ever will be notable. It looks like it'd be fun to watch, but then looking fun doesn't translate into notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 20 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twistable Turnable Man

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

Appears to a one line article with no relevance of article presented, no content, and context, and references are not provided... Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a couple of reasons:
1. Shel Silverstein rocks (technically not a WP-approved keep rationale, but it needs to be said)
2. I'm not an AFD regular, so I'm nt sure about this, but just googling "twistable turnable man review" brings up reviews in LA Times, AllMusic, and NYDailyNews. Doesn't that meet WP:Notability (albums)? Significant independent coverage in reliable sources?
3. Maybe give the author more than half an hour to build up the article before AFD'ing it (although I do appreciate your not using CSD).

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already an in-depth review from the Los Angeles Times as a reference, and the Google News Archives show extensive coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted, the article now contains LA Times and Allmusic reviews; much more coverage is out there - e.g., [94][95][96][97][98][99]. While the article clearly could use expansion, the record meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 08:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album has received plenty of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources (some of which are now included in the article), so meets WP:NALBUM. — sparklism ^hey! 09:31, 26 February 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 Republican In Name Only. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy moth Republican

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

A political slang term that doesn't really have any use in political discourse. A synonym for RINO, it's basically a neologism from the 1980s. See NEO. GrapedApe (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's probably worth a sentence at Republican In Name Only, but without any real refs, I won't say merge. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republican In Name Only; no verified content to reliable sources. Redirect per WP:COMMONNAME.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republican In Name Only per RightCowLeftCoast. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 26 February 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. Editors recommending delete pointed to WP:GNG, but the general consensus is that sufficient sources exist with sufficiently in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. It would be great if someone could add those sources (and other info if appropriate) to the article as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State Patty's Day

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

Non-notable student-created binge drinking event. Deleted at least twice previously and re-created. WP:NOT a billboard for student parties. Possible WP:SPEEDY candidate; G4, A7.BroadSt_Bully ^[talk] 01:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep I've seen this stupid party making the news [100] often. I hate it, but it does satisfy WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- GNG met, and not liking something is not a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speedy keep is inappropriate here, this isn't a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom, please WP:AGF for starters. I don't have an opinion on this, but I'm not 100% sure WP:GNG is met - I don't see much out-of-state coverage from WP:RS, although there is a reasonable amount of state-wide coverage. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's gotten coverage from the Associated Press and has been republished on news sites like "Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette" and "AZ Daily Sun." It may be a student created local holiday, but every year it draws in people from out-of-town, and has historically led to massive property damage. I think it qualifies as notable, and should probably stick around.Therationalpi (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Associated Press is a WP:RS and would go some way to establishing notability, those other two you mentioned sound like clear tabloids to me, and thus do not. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the above-cited googlenews coverage? It includes Patriot News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, NPR, ABC News (AP), Allentown Morning Call. Do those papers seem like tabloids? --GrapedApe (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the policy criteria for a stand alone article (WP:NOT), local event, gets local news coverage, of no encyclopedic significance, may warrant a line or two in the University article. LGA _talk^edits 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Penn State page at the very least, if not Keep outright. Considering that prior to the event even happening this year, it has already garnered coverage from NPR and the AP, and that individuals come from places throughout the Northeast (the State College borough report on State Patty's Day 2012 mentions arrest of students from several schools in NY, NJ, OH, and MA), I think there is sufficeint evidence that currently, the event generates interest over a wide area of the United States. Jasebasketball (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article needs a lot of work and more sourcing, but given the fact that it's scraped by through several nominations, it seems notable on some level. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It didn't "scrape by" several nominations; AfD resulted in deletion twice.[101][102] Is every student block party, disturbance or riot that gets coverage now going to warrant its own Wikipedia entry? BroadSt_Bully ^[talk] 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG as clearly as this one does, then !yes.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The news stories that have been cited by the keep votes here are routine local news stories regarding issues of drinking and disorderly conduct. This kind of routine news coverage is outside Wikipedia's scope, and does not lend any notability at all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was sceptical about this one but this AP story picked up by ABC news gave me pause, it details the 'event' and its effect on the local community and economy. Asimilar story by NPR cinched in for me. J04n(talk page) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. Here's significant coverage/analysis in a book source: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. Significant coverage in reliable sources with national coverage: [103], [104]. Additional significant coverage: [105], [106]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable event per the sources from Northamerica and J04n. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:31, 3 March 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. Whether to redirect, and where to, is a separate matter and up to editors. Sandstein 20:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rectory Square

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as it is about a residential street in London with no notable buildings, events or residents. No google hits other than property for sale etc. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 00:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - yeah, it's basically a small residential community centred around a "loop" (the street of the same name) and a side-street that doesn't seem to have a name. I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a populated settlement (the likes of which are generally considered notable). It might be considered a sub-suburb (of sorts) by local real estate agents but that's probably not enough, unless someone can substantiate that anyone official considers it a separate suburb. Stalwart111 05:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that it's a neighbourhood, only a street and a square. One of the buildings there is notable (the former East London Synagogue) but the street doesn't appear to be, unless additional coverage can be found in sources not available online, and the only verifiable information in the article is its location. Peter James (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stepney Green. It's a street, not a place so it can't be given a free pass at notability per WP:NPLACE. Nevertheless, a google search for "Rectory Square" brings up primarily sources for this street (mostly property related), so it's a valid search term. AFAIK every hit in the first four pages was to do with this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Validity of a search term on a property site is no indication that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. If it was, it would be reasonable to have disambiguation links to other streets with the name, as although not primary topics they would be equally valid due to mentions on the same or similar sites. There is also no mention of the street in the Stepney Green article. It's possible that it could be, but Rectory Square is as likely to be mentioned in the New Quay article - it's where the church pictured in that article (but not mentioned in the text) is located. Peter James (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's a valid search term on Wikipedia. You don't need to get to the same level of notability for a redirect, you just need the term covered somewhere such that it is correctly sourced to belong in some article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search results can be explained by the number of properties for sale or rent advertised on property sites. What makes this Rectory Square a valid search term? Are the others? Peter James (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has redirects all over the place. Have a look for them. And property sites are reliable sources, just that they show a property exists, rather than is notable, so we don't use them for articles, but can validate the existence of something in another. But the basic litmus test is, "would you expect someone to type 'Rectory Square' into Wikipedia". I think you would. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"would you expect someone to type 'Rectory Square' into Wikipedia" - the existence of Rectory Square in London doesn't make the others less valid search terms, and if all that's required is evidence of existence should there be a disambiguation page for this (and for any other ambiguous street name)? Peter James (talk) 17:16, 26 February 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. No discussion after nearly a month. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) @ 10:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Sachs

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

After searching for sources with which to clean this article up (the original was something of a disaster), I find that the only thing I can verify about this person is that she has written some books and knows Princess Caroline of Monaco. Nothing really notable here. None of her books appear to have garnered any attention, except The Wild Emperor, which appears to have been noticed because of her husband Rolf's involvement. (WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm not finding much out there other than some tabloid gossip. There are a few articles that mention her book, but it's almost always trivial in mention at best. I'm thinking that we could probably create a subsection in her husband's article and maybe mention her there? Nothing big, just mention that he's married to her, that she's an author, and that they published a photobook together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, her husband's article is sort of a mess. It needs massive cleanup for so many reasons I'm not even sure which one to list first.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:18, 25 January 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) 15:46, 30 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 6 February 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:50, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 20 February 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. No policy based arguments for deletion have been offered J04n(talk page) 11:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Najamuddin Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

The page's creator promised, at the end of the first deletion discussion, to bring reliable sources. That never happened, the page creator has been inactive for almost four years and noone has taken interest in this page. It's a pointless example of original research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must be Kept.The Subject is Notable.The time we are utilizing in discussion here in that time we may improve this Article.Msoamu (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone is willing to improve it then that would be great! My whole point is that it's lain as a piece of original research with nobody to tend to it since 2009. I'm just skeptical that it will receive any attention which could support its notability; because it's original research, the subject's actual notability isn't really proven. As I mentioned above, the first deletion discussion resulted in keep based on promises from the article's creator for improvement and that improvement never happened. Is there a way, perhaps, that some sort of a time limit could be set for improvements by which it needs to be kept or just deleted as OR? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MezzoMezzo, what was the point of putting in an AfD on a ultra-obvious keep with the supposed motive of alerting WP:ISLAM editors and not even ensuring a WP ISLAM tag was on the article so that it shows up at WP ISLAM/ALERTS? Sorry but it would have taken you less bytes to just post on the project Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I know very little about both such projects and only recently started looking into them in regard to some other articles, so I didn't know there was any relation between an article's nomination for deletion and any affiliated projects. That does add complications to such discussions which I had not previously realized, though.

Regarding the previous keep, then my second nomination was based on my reasoning above and my own lack of awareness regarding what you've mentioned here. I still wonder, though, about what happens with articles such as these which appear to be OR even after listing them with various projects? Do they sit indefinitely? Where can I find rules about how this works? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the rule is that there is no deadline for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 27 February 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. G3 - blatant hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Original Studios

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

There does not appear to be a production company with this name. All google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. After fact-checking the production companies for over a dozen items on this list, none of them identify "Disney Channel Original Studios" as their production company. I believe this article to be a WP:HOAX. Looking at the article creator's editing history, this editor seems to have a history of creating hoax articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I would also like to add that the creator of the article in question has recently tried to insert a claim that Disney Channel was about to release a Calvin and Hobbes TV movie. And it apparently has not been the first time. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:30, 20 February 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 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMazzanti Technologies

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

Extremely promotional article with almost no third party press coverage. Almost all sources are press releases or the company's website. Google hits show up very little in terms of news coverage. CitizenNeutral (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. In addition some of the claims seem to be fake, for example the article says "On August 23, 2006, Mayor Newark Mayor Cory Booker issued a proclamation declaring the day "eMazzanti Technologies Day in Newark" but I could find no reference to this outside the company's website, in which the page shows a picture of the CEO and a black guy (who doesn't even look like Cory Booker) holding a plaque. Some of the other references are dead links - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete - Agreed, searching for references to support the Cory Booker comment didn't provide anything aside from another press release. They have several clients as these links and the Microsoft case study show but it seems the primary links outweigh the third-party news coverage. CIOL.com provided a few short articles about the company including one listed in this article which is now dead. What also concerns me is that the first four pages of Google News results are original or republished press releases until the sixth page where I found this crn.com article. On that same results page, I found another crn.com article for the WatchGuard partnership here. A large amount of press releases usually suggests the company hasn't received significant coverage and this somewhat seems to be case. Although the company has also received attention for goodwill work and for environmental work and has affiliated themselves with Microsoft and Symantec, articles about this are rather short. At CRN.com, I also found some brief mentions here, here, here and so on (ninth page of results, there's even one about the company giving away free backpacks). I very much recognize the company has received news attention (especially from crn.com) and for goodwill but, as mentioned, I also feel the press releases outweigh the news articles including the short news articles. I have no objection to userfying the article for future use. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another network management and consultation firm advertising on Wikipedia. That's a superficially impressive collection of press release sources and petty trade awards. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:32, 25 February 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 07:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Bancel

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

Non-notable corporate executive. His claim to notability stems from running non-notable companies or working for Eli Lilly. Article is promotional in nature, and largely unsourced. Very little third party press coverage in reliable sources. Based upon the edit history it appears the page is rife with COI editing. CitizenNeutral (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, there are no claims to notability, and the blog references simply state that he was hired by a company. WP:NN--Nixie9✉ 16:35, 21 February 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) 11:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya used car import law

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

Overly detailed, how-to-ish treatment of an obscure topic that probably fails WP:GNG. Orphaned for four years now. BDD (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with the characterisation of this topic as obscure. Such laws may seem so to many people in the more developed Western countries, where there is a plentiful supply of older cars to satisfy the demand for used cars, but have a significant effect in developing countries where many people who would like to own a car don't have a hope of being able to afford one under eight years old, and where there are very few reliable older cars in the indigenous market because car ownership is in general very low. I don't have any experience of Kenya but know well that equivalent protectionist laws in Poland in the 1990s were a major topic of discussion. Of course these are only personal impressions ("original research" in Wikipedia-speak), but no more so than the nomination rationale, with its guesswork of "obscure" and "probably" and the totally irrelevant "orphan". Phil Bridger (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Like Phil Bridger mentions the topic could possibly be notable in Kenya but at the moment the article is written like a Japanese car import guide for Kenyans. It doesn't pass WP:GNG in its current format since it's unreferenced and all the external links point to generic websites. The way the statistics are formatted suggests that they may have been lifted straight from external sources. Funny ^Pika! 21:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete fails WP:NOTHOWTO, although it might be worth a complete rewrite to talk more about the law itself, instead of the specific howto details. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:47, 27 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Children

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

Unsourced advertisement for non-notable book. Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Boston Globe called this book "the definitive study of the Baader-Meinhof gang" in this 1981 article. The New York Times published a 1977 review by Stephen Spender calling the book "strong on facts and useful source material". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three references and cleaned up the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen's improvements to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The article cites reliable primary sources.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 21:27, 20 February 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) 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy Family Carnival

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

An insufficiently notable sideshow carnival, their audition to appear in America's Got Talent is ... disturbing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the moment, I'll just note that they've been around a while: HighBeam yields a substantial article in the 2004 Rocky Mountain News [107], and here's one from the 2010 Tulsa World [108] (there appear to be others there, but that website has limited access).--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 11 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete" Fails WP:BIO and WP:ORG. A strange TV clip of 2 women stapling money to a man's head is not multiple instances of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. The two refs in the article include an ik one from the local paper, as well as a publicity release, which does not support notability. Edison (talk) 00:22, 21 February 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) 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Wall Comedy Empire

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

seems to fail Notability test, but giving it a little time to see if updated. Jab843 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not-notable and non-neutral. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Feel free to update your thoughts, in light of revisions to the article that I believe address your concerns. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage -- some is passing, but some is focused on the comedy club. Certainly enough to pass GNG. Have added some refs. Also -- as now indicated, the club is reported on under a second name as well. Other text problems were not reason for deletion, and have been addressed in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 11 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A huge wall of sources actually works against the article as most of them are just passing mentions or community-calendar stuff, but there's a few that look reliable and do seem to confirm basic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good enough coverage for GNG, however it does need a cleanup of references as there is virtually WP:UNDUE on the reference section alone. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 27 February 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) @ 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manjaagiin Ichinnorov

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

Article does not establish notability. Was prodded before but refs were added. Current refs total three, one dead link and another that links to the subject's personal website. Whilst she appears to do good work, it seems to be that she fails WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's particular unfortunate (though not unexpected given its age) that this link is dead as it connected to other links as well. The source still exists, though, and only requires you to go to the Ödriin sonin building or (hopefully) the Central Library to verify. For a Mongolian person, even a significant one, sufficient internet coverage is rarely sustained for any longer period: few Mongolian internet posts seem to outlive 2 years. So I think your argument based on the GNG is not convincing. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:GNG does not demand that only online sources are used. If there are existing textual sources that can be used then please reference the article accorindingly with the refs showing the correct ISBN number. It is a shame there is not much online about this woman, but as things stand the article references only her personal website and online searches pull back little of note. Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the ISSN of Ödriin sonin, but it is a relatively large newspaper associated with the Mongolian Democratic Party. I've dived a bit into online reports. That woman is publishing a lot herself, but some independent online sources do exist. Not on the issues presented in the current Wikipedia article, of course, these are too long ago. I'll link some of these sources, but you can take for granted that most will be dead links before two years are over. Is there a way to archieve source pages on Wikipedia? Else I'll have to handle a third deletion discussion as well ...

A report about Ichinnorov being selected as one of the world’s 20 most influential female lawyers by “Америкийн их сургуулиудын онлайн холбоо” http://www.unen.mn/content/1510.shtml

http://www.shuud.mn/%D0%BC-%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD-%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B4%D1%8D%D0%B3%D1%82-%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B0/ an article about the same event, the selecting organization was American “Online College Network”

Article that announces the appointment of Ichinnorov as the Vice chair of the party committee for Family issues, May 2011 http://factnews.mn/news/view/index/id/8301

Interviews where Ichinnorov (as a member of the small assembly of the MAH criticizes the oligarchization of the party, December 2011 http://www.gonews.mn/post.php?id=2317 http://www.gonews.mn/post.php?id=2250

Declaration why she is leaving the MAH, April 2012 http://times.mn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4016:-----7--&catid=10:2011-09-12-13-40-48&Itemid=24

A conference on human rights in Mongolia, website of the office for citizens of the Mongolian president. Features the presentation of Ichinnorov in the subheadline and gives her words verbatim at the end of the article, December 2012 http://www.irgen.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140:2012-12-10-08-12-27&catid=4:procuror&Itemid=3

An article on the same presentation on another news portal http://www.news.mn/content/127916.shtml

G Purevdorj (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I entered those sources. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:42, 30 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 5 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 20 February 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) 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-dentity

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

The article opens with a definition of E-dentity saying that its meaning is the reputation given to an internet user by combining the information from associable usernames and other data on the internet. That definition is unreferenced. The next part of the article says that E-dentity is someone’s identity in the online healthcare world. That definition is supported by one reference (ref 1, Guenther) and is different, though slightly similar, from the original definition given. References 2 and 3 (both by Ouzounian) talk about a play called "E-dentity", not the word nor do they ever use E-dentity as anything other than the name of the play and therefor are not relevant. WP:GNG PhantomTech (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not wise enough to say delete or keep in this case. For the play E-dentity, it does back up the definition of the word, but I don't it should be mentioned. There are better refs out there. The last two sentences of the paragraph are copyvio. I'm not seeing anything with a general web search except for a company call E-dentity. They have multiple web fronts. Newspaper sources include Los Angeles Times in 1999 and The Mark, but only a few other sources. Google books has multiple books. Would this be better at wikitionary? Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what wikitionary's policy on notability is but yes, being a word, it probably should be on wikitionary instead. Anyway, I don't think that being the name of a play supports the definiton of the word. PhantomTech (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:45, 6 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per WP:NEO nad WP:CRYSTAL. This is also called e-branding. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 26 February 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 10:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Ouest

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

I am a bit embarassed by this article. It seems to be done in good faith, shows some knowledge of Paris, and suggests some personal effort from the contributor. But the thing is there is no such thing as a well defined "Paris Ouest" that "has been associated with great wealth, elitism and social hegemony in French popular culture as well as in some masterpieces of French literature such as Balzac's La comédie humaine or Proust's In Search of Lost Time. ". The problem is that this phrase "Paris Ouest" is not commonly used, neither in every-day speech, nor in scholarly articles. If you look for it in Google, you mostly find references to "Paris Ouest" as a purely geographical area, that is often much larger that what the article states, and many working-class areas. So an article about "Paris Ouest" has a metonomy for "upper-class Parisians" is irrelevant. The article also defines Paris-Ouest as " four central and western Parisian arrondissements: the 6th, the 7th, the 8th and the 16th; and of the city of Neuilly-sur-Seine". But I cannot find that source for that outside Wikipedia, that sounds rather gratuitous to have an article aggregating those places into a single entity. Now, an article about upper-class neighborhoods in Paris could be interesting but it would be quite a bit different from this "Paris-Ouest" -- Superzoulou (talk) Note: This AfD is posted on behalf of Superzoulou at his request. I personally have no opinion either way. He prodded the article. I deprodded it as not being an uncontroversial deletion, as I believe it needs further discussion from those more knowledgeable about the subject. He requested I took it to AfD as he was not sure of the procedure. I have done so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information into Paris and delete it. It seems the main sources are the books written by Monique and Michel Pinçon-Charlot and some parts of the article might very well include original research. I couldn't find any significant coverage, even inside the book sources (see: [109], [110], [111]). It is only mentioned twice in the first book and not even mentioned once in the other two, so if it is an expression, it is rarely used by the main sources. Nimuaq (talk) 18:22, 29 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 20 February 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EVO Smart Console

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

Notability is not established. No sources in article pertain to the "EVO Smart Console" or "Evo: Phase One". All sources in the article concern the merged content from the deleted Evo 2 article, and consist of press releases and primary sources, the same issues brought up in Evo 2 AFD. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple RSes covering the topic in detail (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). Passes GNG. And it's appropriate to take into account the EVO 2 sources because as you noted, the topics are merged. If there's too much info on the EVO 2 then perhaps consider a request for rename to EVO Consoles? -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The EVO 2 sources were brought up in the EVO 2 AFD as simply being product announcements. Is the fact that a product announced sufficient for notability? All of these articles seem to deal simply with the announcement, preorder, etc. I searched specifically for "EVO Smart Console" and that's probably why I didn't find many relevant hits. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dismissing EVO 2 sources because they're press releases and primary sources is fine. I'm just saying that the fact that they are EVO 2 sources instead of EVO 1 sources shouldn't be a factor here since they were merged. For what it's worth, I agree that several of those sources don't meet WP:RS. -Thibbs (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct, and I didn't mean to imply that EVO 2 vs EVO 1 sources was the issue. Simply that the source IN the article happened to be those from the EVO 2 merge, and the issues brought up the EVO 2 AFD about those same sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was able to locate a few secondary sources after spending some time with Google, including a review published in the Anniston Star and another review published in Maximum PC. I also discovered that Thunderbolt also published a review of the EVO 2, but it's debatable whether that qualifies as a WP:RS. It seems rather odd to me though that a game console would receive such a minimal amount of media coverage. For anyone doing additional searches on the topic, take note that some media reports described the product as the "Evo Console" or even the "Evo Game Console." --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 10 February 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 20 February 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter Cymru

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

Non-notable, lacks references, WP:OR, WP:NOTYELLOW. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try searching Google News archive. It's clearly notable. 'Lacks references' isn't a reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me some sources that prove it's notable. If it has no references then how does it prove notability? JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[112] --Michig (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage in the UK seems to indicate this is past WP:GNG and WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added new links from the BBC, where Shelter Cymru's actions have led to changes by the Welsh Assembly government. Hopefully, this adds to its notability Dobby22 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 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) 11:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Burke

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

This article fails WP:ATHLETE, cites overwhemlingly one source only in the article and has been abandoned since 2010. Despite Google has a 300K+ hit, majority of them are either wiki copied pages or pinterest/twitter pages not related to the subject. Cahk (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject did not meet GNG by receiving significant coverage as an individual. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Rikster2 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a highly reliable mainstream source discussing her other career as an actress on the first page of Google, there's probably way more sources out there. Secret ^account 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article merely gives some background into the subject's childhood - I am not sure how that bumps up to the WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO threshold.--Cahk (talk) 18:21, 14 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having received no major national college sports awards, the subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH. She is still an active college athlete, and has never played in the WNBA or other professional league, so no presumption per WP:NBASKETBALL. Must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Quick Google web search reveals multiple hits, but very few from independent sources necessary to establish Wikipedia notability--mostly University of Nebraska, Big 12 Conference, recruiting sites, etc. A Google News search reveals no current hits; a Google News Archive search shows multiple hits, but all of it is in the nature of routine game coverage, etc. The depth of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, as required by GNG, does not appear to exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey Ikin

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

This article has been tagged for notabilty for almost 2 years and still has no references. The article has only one external link and appears to be partially copied from [113] (I already removed some directly copied material). Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 04:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 05:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sourced some of the claims in the article and removed some of the puffery. Given verification of the awards he's won and the fact that I see a lot of his work up for sale in renowned galleries, I think the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both nationally and internationally recognised award winning minimalist designer. Easily meets the notability requirements. Article in need of work though as it is minimalist. NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 24 February 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. After discounting IPs and single-purpose accounts, at any rate. Sandstein 20:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Svetilnik

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

The society's notability can't be established through reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is the most reputable classical liberal think tank in Slovenia. It is widely known in Slovenia as as well as abroad. 84.112.194.146 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Everything that I see in the article is just a passing mention. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article again, as it has been recently updated with references. 195.66.69.18 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no just reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.38.55.136 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link only shows how disinterested people at the Slovenian Wikipedia are in establishing Svetilnik’s notability. Assuming you are one of them, I suggest you establish this fact by actually reading the Wikipedia article about Svetilnik (unless you are not interested in the truth). Staining the Slovenian Wikipedia with your lack of professionalism is one thing, but trying to do this with the English Wikipedia is not going to fly so easily. People who decide about deletion of an article at the English Wikipedia do care about the truth. You may keep closing your eyes from the truth, but there are people in this world who do not.77.38.55.136 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common misconception that a notability can be established by Wikipedia itself, be it Slovenian or English one, however, this is not true since Wikipedia is not a "light". It is only a "mirror" reflecting the light, if there is any out there. Notability needs to be established "out there" in (notable) secondary sources and if they exist, they are cited by Wikipedia in references. If there are no secondary sources covering a matter of WP article as its topic, not only a passing mention, then WP has nothing to reflect. Also, the supporters of this article claim that their aim is a promotion of classical liberalism, but none of them has made any effort to translate content from Classical liberalism and write an article in Slovenian Wikipedia about it, they skipped hard work and went straight to their own self-promotion article. If their aim was sincerely a promotion of classical liberalism, and not mere self-promotion, this (i.e. Classical liberalism in Slovene) would not be a red link over there. It seems that their aim is a self-promotion, rather then a promotion. Article about Svetilnik on Slovenian WP will be deleted, because the consensus over there is it lacks notability in secondary sources, so it should be here on English WP. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 11:38, 12 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 07:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 13. Snotbot t • c » 08:38, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This organization's notability is dubious at best, and I'm concerned about WP:NPOV because it appears that the article was written solely by its representative(s) using single-purpose account(s). About the only possibly relevant reference is the one by the Economic Freedom Network, others are indirect or merely passing mentions. I'll leave the decision whether that's enough to others, but I lean towards delete - not necessarily for any single reason stated, but for combination of all the reasons (supported by the drama about The Truth above). — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Svetilnik is well known around the world as the leading Slovenian classical liberal think tank. Its Liberty Seminars attract participants from all over Europe and beyond. Its notability is unquestionable. - Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.111.85 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then you'll have no problem in finding reliable secondary sources to confirm that. Until then, ^{[citation needed]}. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete the article regarding Svetilnik. I have not found one error in article about them. I have attended 3 of their events: the Free Market Road Show in 2011, a couple of lectures at the Liberty Seminar in 2012, and most recently a lecture given by Tom Palmer on the "End of the Welfare State", a book he edited. I have found the events to be highly informative with well-respected and credentialed presenters. As for the Liberty Seminars, it offers students from around the world the opportunity to attend education sessions on liberty and economics; I met them myself last August. I know for a fact that the organization is in association with Atlas, a think tank in the USA. If Wikipedia is interested in providing information that is accurate, then in my opinion the article should without question remain. In fact, I find it mystifying that anyone is trying to get the article removed. (I also put this comment under talk. First time user and unsure where to post it. Per Wikipedia I am "Iscem") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscem (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help in demistyfying it for you if you actually read what the deletion supporters wrote, including links to relevant Wikipedia guidelines that we included. Whoever sent you here to write your personal opinion about the society does not realize that personal opinions and unsupported "statements of fact" are irrelevant, so this mobilizing is rather pointless and counter-productive. It merely shows that they couldn't care less about Wikipedia beyond what's useful for their promotion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended some lectures organized by Svetilnik and I have to point out that they are held on a high level and focused on subjects of economic and personal freedom, subjects discussed in Slovenian public far too seldom. The information on their events is spread through emails and Facebook page (which is the way I am updated) and all information and publications issued are on their web page. It appears that no other blogs, web pages or news publishers cover them which might be the reason why there are so few secondary or tertiary sources. Their web page is a reach source of information about Svetilnik, but if I understand the debate here, this does not count as a reliable source. I should stress at this point that other web pages, news papers and weekly/monthly magazines are not a reliable source in Slovenia either. Any kind or type of information can be published (and is being published on a regular basis) in Slovenian publication in exchange for an asset or a favor in return. In this regard, the inertness of Svetilnik to main stream media and internet publishers is a sign of independence and professionalism. It would be a real shame if their independence would eventually lead to deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.80.222 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, wasn't able to find anything of substance on this group in English that was from an independent or reliable source. Of course, there may be such things in Slovenian that I can't find because I don't have Slovenian. I also note for the closing admin that many of the comments to keep this article are coming from clear WP:SPA accounts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 28 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Shook

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

Sources used don't mention her. Notability appears iffy. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually one of the sources currently on the article does mention her, but only to quote her, and only one sentence. There is plenty of coverage on her and I managed to find one decent source, but the overwhelming majority of sources I found are: 1) published by her, 2) business directory and/or social media sites, 3) published by the Association of Flight Attendants or its parent organization, the Communications Workers of America and therefore not truly independent of the subject, or 4) only mention her in passing or quote her, which is expected given her position. She does not inherit notability from the union or her position in it, and based on what I said above I don't see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gnews seems to me to have plenty of sources indicating she is notable. Eg. Notable for being "international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA" New York Times and having been seated on the Executive Council of the largest federation of unions in the United States, the AFL-CIO. As a member of the Council, The Street PR Newswire. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that she is notable. She is International President of a labor union with over 50,000 members, and also a member of the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the United States. I've added the source mentioned by KuyaBriBri to the article, which contains significant coverage including a lot of biographical detail. It is an independent source as it has no direct connection to her union. Please note that WP:PEOPLE says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I can easily find dozens of brief descriptions of Veda Shook and her union work over the last ten years, all of which add up to notability in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presidents of large national associations are notable, including labor unions. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 27 February 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 06:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America's Third Party

AfDs for this article:

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

No sign of notability found through the usual searches. This was previously deleted (G7) after an AfD was started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Third Party and the author assented to the deletion. I marked this new article for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article under G4, but that was declined because the prior deletion was a speedy. So here we are at AfD again. Arxiloxos (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated page and added sources

This evening I updated the America's Third Party page and added legitimate sources to show the history. Please take a look at these and do not delete the page. Coolnation (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient significant coverage of organization found in multiple reliable sources for organization to be considered notable per WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & RightCowLeftCoast. Non-notable per WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 21 February 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. If anyone wants any of it merged somewhere I would be happy to userfy it for them. J04n(talk page) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Son (comics)

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

This is nothing more than a plot dump, and provides no indication of being notable. Relevant plot details already exist in various character pages, but there are too many main cast members to redirect to just one of them. Page was previously PRODed, which was contested in favor of merge, though no merge candidate was suggested. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dark Reign" section could be merged into the Harry Osborn article and the "Heroic Age" section could be merged into the Gabriel Stacy article. Obviously both sections would have to be drastically cut down. Then this page could be made into a disambiguation page leading to both of those articles, and possible The Amazing Spider-Man since that is the comic book series the first storyline was in. Spidey104 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, and this may be opening a bigger can of beans, this and a lot of similar articles should be compacted into "List of Character Foo story arcs" similar to episode lists. As it stands the article:

Does not demonstrate that the story arc is notable in its own right. (Yes, Spider-Man, the Osborns, and The Amazing Spider-Man are notable. That doesn't make the story automatically notable.)
Does not demonstrate that the later limited series is notable.
It implies a strong linkage between the two with out providing secondary sources for that linkage.
It has next to nil real world context. An even that is bundles into only the infobox and lead. (American Son (comics)#Reception is sales trivia and shows nothing about a critical response, review, or discussion about the story.)

As for merging or redirecting... I don't see it. It's a blip - 1 line - at best for Harry Osborn, which needs a hell of a lot of attention as it is most a plot dump itself. And Gabriel and Sarah Stacy is something that should be merged in to List of Marvel Comics characters: S, not have more plot added.

- J Greb (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned those articles for places to merge because Argento Surfer said "no merge candidate was suggested." I would be fine if the article was deleted. Spidey104 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 20 February 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 27 February 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 07:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Star Planet

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

Seems to read as an advertisement; not very encyclopedic. TheSuave 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

non voting comment from reviewing admin. I declined the speedy deletion though there is no assertion of significance in this iteration. A better version was deleted as G11, which at least did assert significance. There are sufficient g-coverage links that rescue may be possible. That is the crux of the matter-- whether or not subject is notable. Let the afd ride. Dloh cierekim 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for ("movie star planet") yielded primarily their own website, a hatful of YouTube videos, a bunch of blog entries, and a boatload of wiki.answers.com links and the like. I tried finding better coverage by Googling ("movie star planet" review), and found nothing like in-depth independent coverage; however, there was a release from the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council, apparently a tentacle of the Better Business Bureaus, expressing concern about security of information submitted by children. I followed this up by Googling ("movie star planet" privacy) and ("movie star planet" security), hoping to find articles in the media about the matter; but got nothing more substantial than another link to the ASRC release. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 17:54, 17 February 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) 04:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 20 February 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 Speedied via A7. Speedy deleted via A7 by User:LadyofShalott. (Non-admin closure) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juridisk Selskab

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

1. no assertion of notability 2. no sources (quick search didn't find any) Widefox; talk 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Even though google doesn't provide the in-depth result for notability I think this organization is pretty limited to a university, in which case it has no real effect outside of it. It lacks proper notability. To nominator, article should have been tagged with speedy deletion criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:26, 20 February 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. Sorry to contradict Eduemoni, but this establishment was the center of a groundbreaking lawsuit regarding film exhibition in the U.S. [114]. The fact that the venue is no longer operational does not detract from its notability. The article could benefit from more vigorous editing - and I will fix the title to reflect the correct name of the theater (not theatre, as per Uzma's observation). In future, I would respectfully request that some time be spent in researching a subject before submitting it for deletion consideration - IMHO, this article does not belong here. A non-admin closure with a slightly bold attitude. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard Drive-In Theatre (Allentown, Pennsylvania)

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

Fails WP:GNG. It was in business, it closed. Somebody built something else on the site. Cursory mention in a book about drive-ins that I found that isn't in the article but doesn't do anything notability wise.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 22:12, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guideline and also fails CORP criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. The drive-in was involved in a major anti-trust case, as detailed in Drive-In Theaters: A History from Their Inception in 1933. Warden (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well we're living here in Allentown, and they're closing all the drive-ins down[115] ... Well, no matter the outcome of the AfD, there's no reason to torch all the content, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Drive-In, something can and should go into the landmarks section of the Allentown article. On the notability side though, there's certainly evidence the site has received much coverage over the years, though likely mostly local/regional, and no one likely has checked the full archives of the Morning Call.[116][117][118][119]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough coverage for this to meet the GNG. Besides Warden and Milowent's sources, this article and this article seem to mention it, and it looks like the drive-in got a lot of coverage in Billboard magazine around the time of the antitrust case. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be renamed to spell Theater as "Theater", not Theatre, since that is how the sources spell the topic name. The drive in also was called Union Boulevard Drive-In Theater, so a redirect could be made. A drive-in opened in 1949 and a central location for a community in 1950s is going to receive significant coverage in off-line sources from the 1950s. A large area of land that remains empty as the former Boulevard Drive-In Theater area is going to receive different land purchase interest over time and city government discussions, each of which is going to generate coverage in reliable sources for the topic. Detailed source material includes Morning Call June 3, 1998, Morning Call June 26, 1998, Morning Call August 13, 1998, Morning Call February 9, 2000, Morning April 24, 2001, Morning Call March 30, 2005, Morning Call June 8, 2005. Sources probably good for one or two sentences in the Wikipedia article include Morning Call October 4, 1990, [120] , [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uzma, assuming someone adds the sources found per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 26 February 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.