Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre

Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

An article has already been created for this terrible event Mikeo34 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I accidentally put this in AfD instead of speedy deletion my mistake. Please ignore this page and I will mark it for speedy now Mikeo34 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you please give me a link to that article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steviedman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of defensive gun use incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Completing nomination for an IP, I am neutral. His/her rationale (originally posted on the talk page) follows:

Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

• creator keep AFD was just completed 4 months ago.
  WP:CSC Gaijin42 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. List of non-notable news events that do not become notable by virtue of being glued together. I would also be opposed, in any case, to the existence of such a list without some semblance of a main article, although it is possible that one could be written. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overall topic is notable, and per

Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria lists of non notable individual items are specifically a valid list selection criteria. A main article is certainly a good idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Agree with nominator. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Your Lord and Master (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note (nominator here) According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html there are an estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US alone. Building a database of cases is great, but it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. 71.61.133.134 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is restricted to ones that have recieved reliable coverage, which is a significantly smaller subset. Every entry here has at least one referene, many have more, and thoe ones that only have one ref, in many cases there were more refs available, but were not included due to trying not to

WP:OVERLINK

If guncite is correct and 1 out of 100 of those cases receive coverage, we should have 100,000 entries on this list from the 20th century alone. I think we're going to need a bigger boat. -

talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I'd also add that it seems to me to violate NPOV. 24.151.27.103 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article describing a notable POV does not itself violate NPOV. The POV issue is allowing

WP:OUTRAGE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: NPOV or INDISCRIMINATE. Take your pick
  p 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is best for collecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.110.65 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would be better to have an article on defensive gun use in general, which Wikipedia does not seem to have. Even the lowest estimates suggest tens of thousands of defensive gun use incidents per year in the United States alone, and other estimates suggest over 2 million such incidents per year in the United States. (And many more such incidents may occur in other countries, including some countries which have few editors of the English Wikipedia or media sources available online in English.) Furthermore, I don't know how we can determine which defensive gun use incidents are notable enough to justify maintaining a list of only the "notable" ones. For some of the incidents listed here, none of the participants' names are mentioned either here or in the cited source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The defensive gun use article is needed, agreed. I've done my best to include non-US incidents, but as gun laws generally more restrictive elsewhere, they are hard to find - plus ones that aren't in English are obviously much harder to find for US people. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that it would be better to have an article, so I was

WP:BOLD and created one. I get the impression that some of the people who want to keep the list are doing so because they think the subject is a good idea, and therefore want to keep the list. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, but consider limiting to e.g. "with casualties". _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I have notified all of those that commented on the previous AFD of this discussion (except for pbp as he is already involved here), as well as those who have edited the article in question. I believe this does not violate
  WP:CANVASS as I notified all, regardless of they way they !voted, but I am putting it here just to avoid confusion etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Gaijin invited me to comment here as a past editor of the article (I corrected a few typos with AWB). It appears to me a long list of miscellaneous, nonnotable events, covered under
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The current form of the list also seems designed as a long pamphlet for gun rights. We don't have List of gun killings by criminals or List of accidental shootings of children by gunowners
  .

Defensive gun use is a widely discussed and debated topic, and it would be interesting to have an overview of the topic summarizing research and opinions from all sides. This list has been specifically designed to not be that overview, including only the most positive incidents and views: "Roberts was quoted as saying "It's not [politically correct] to run around in public wielding a handgun, but it's sometimes necessary," he said. "And [it's] our moral responsibility — not just [that of] the police — [to] defend other lives when we can". If kept, I suggest moving to simply List of gun use incidents to make sure Wikipedia is covering all varieties of gun use, rather than those that fit a particular legislative agenda.

As a side note, I'm also not fond of the strategy of giving an AfD a few days, and then when seeing that the vote is turning against it, making a transparent attempt to recruit new voters from presumed sympathetic pools. Unfortunately, it'll probably work here, but such is Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically invited quite a few people who voted delete the previous AFD, so I think your accusation is misplaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I bet the fact that there were more keeps than deletes didn't influence your thinking at all. But I don't want to get sidetracked here; I agree your actions were within policy. The main point I want to emphasize here is that it's silly to have a list of incidents like "Jane Gunowner scared off a masturbator with a handgun" while we would never allow a worldwide list of handgun murders. It's indiscriminate, and it's POV. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you have an AFD so soon, it makes sense to tell all those before about it. Wouldn't be fair otherwise. We don't want people to keep nominating the same article time and time again, until they get what they want, that gaming the system. Who is this IP address really? Seems odd for a new user to be acting this way. [1] Dream Focus 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The waiting two days until the first round of votes were in was what struck me--that and also notifying all past contributors to the article. Willing to agree to disagree, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here. Since my anonymous edit seems to have caused concerned, I went through the effort of digging out my password and logging in. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is specific criteria for the list. The nominator claims it violates POV, when obviously it does not, and you can not delete list articles simply because they are incomplete. And there are references to the things listed, and some of the incidents even have their own Wikipedia article. This sort of thing does get ample coverage. Dream Focus 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Defensive gun use is a widely studied, although politically charged, topic and the literature reflects this. Creating a list of notable incidents on a notable topic does not violate any Wikipedia policies, and the re-nomination by an anon suggests a timing choice related to recent U.S. events. Having said that, I would break the list up differently, but that's a matter for regular editing, not a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tone's always tricky online, so please read this question in a curious voice rather than an argumentative one: if this is ultimately kept, would the "Keep" votes here also support a referenced
  WP:POINT; these seem like the kind of lists that once started, will rapidly be expanded by other editors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, those list would all be fine. You shouldn't try to delete something because something else doesn't exist. Instead why not go and create these other articles? Dream Focus 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the community consensus is that this is a useful level of detail for Wikipedia, even if I don't quite agree, I'll be glad to pitch in. I think it'd be better to hold off until this AfD is resolved, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The topic of "defensive gun use" is certainly notable, but this looks more like a small sublist of a very large group of "incidents" which should be dealt with in brief in an article on the topic, rather than as a list here. Collect (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TCAICANTBCRA- Why does this need to be a dispute between delete and keep? Defensive gun use is a worthy topic to be discussed on this encyclopedia. No dispute about that. But the current content is embarrassing rubbish; why does it need to be a list of incidents without context or explanation? If I'm looking up defensive gun use I expectto find relevant information like the arguments for and against allowing guns for home protection and stuff like that. Not 50kb of "Mrs. Jones shot a deviant spying on her in the shower. Mr. Zhang mistook his son's snowman for an intruder and blew its carrot off." The current article is crap and needs to be changed right away. This implies keeping the concept of the article but deleteing the bulk of the current content. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

What does that acronym mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This is useful if beefed up. It may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defence. It is at least useful to describe how guns are actually used for self defence. I would suggest that a section on estimates of defensive gun use, methodologies for estimating defensive gun use, and variability in the estimates of gun use for self defence would be helpful.StopYourBull (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Add studies on relevant estimates of DGU's, be patient, and watch the list grow. It will be at the top of a Google search in no time. This is important information that needs to be compiled somewhere. There is no POV support. That's like saying that a list of Daily Car Uses somehow has a POV in support of access to cars (every "honest" person knows they are only used by drunks to kill people). I think the OP is the one with a POV issue. — Preceding
  talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• KEEP As said this list may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defense. After reading the list it is more clear to me now that there are occasions where self defense requires the use of a gun and that using a gun for self defense is at sometimes a necessary evil. 71.100.18.203 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all "defensive gun use" incidents are not notable. This list in US focused, and if we included incidents globally it would become extremely long and uninteresting. Claritas § 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Still applies. CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not seeing how NOTCLEANUP is relevant here

p 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We don't delete savable content, so we shouldn't be at AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I am a huge Second Amendment supporter, this list is more of a newspaper than an article and we know that Wikipedia is
  WP:NOTNEWS. These are merely random events thown onto a list with a questionable inclusion criteria. A brief glance also shows some BLP concerns when we start making statements like "John Doe broke into a house and Steve Homeowner used a firearm...." Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The criteria for inclusion closely match the criteria used by the various studies of defensive gun use (See the prior AFD for specific quotes from the studies to back this up). If consensus does say that the sourced name mentions are a BLP issue, that is a simple cleanup, and not delete-worthy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the non-notable people's names aren't really that relevant, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to simply remove them all, rather than add that to the list of reasons why this article should be deleted? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see the argument. I had been including them for two reasons - 1) so searches on those names might link to us (Which in retrospect I do admin could cause BLP issues) 2) So that readers already at the article would have some search terms for use for finding additional sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having difficulty believing that 95% of those names are likely search terms. As for the additinal source claim: If it is in the article, it should already have a source. Said source will contain the names if people want to search further. Everything doesn't belong in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note some !voters using all-caps for "KEEP" appear to have few actual Wikipedia edits, and appear here quite oddly indeed. Collect (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that everyone says this, but I would like to state for the record that I have NOT

WP:CANVASSED as implied by Collect, and directly accused by PBP. I notified the editors of the article, and of the previous AFD and said so on this very page. I did not make any posts or requests at any other location. I will also notice that this pendulum swings both ways, and the nominator as well as several of the delete votes are anonymous IPs with not much edit history. I think in both cases the result is the increased scrutiny of gun related topics in the context of the Newtown school tragedy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• One IP address said delete, one IP address said keep, and then two other "keeps" had few edits, one of them posting in and about gun related topics starting back in August though, so I doubt he'd be someone's puppet. [2] Dream Focus 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral changed to userfy allow development of either a non-list article, or a list article with a manageable criteria - I have some serious practical concerns about how you keep a list like this balanced, not indiscriminate, and together; many of the incidents are notable only in aggreggate, not as individual events. However, the NPOV claims are misplaced. I would prefer a merge but we don't have anything on this topic it would appear (I haven't found anything on point).
  Defensive firearm use or something similar would be a good umbrella topic. The criteria needs to be tightened and the focus changed. We don't have a list for run-of-the-mill crimes because any list like that would always be not only incomplete, but not even a shadow of complete. This criteria is similar as it stands now. There is a place for a list similar to this, but the current format bothers me enough to change to a neutral stance. Shadowjams (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Completely agreed that many (if not most) of the incidents would fail GNG on their own. However, this situation is explicitly contemplated by the list MOS : [Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria]]. Do you have any narrowing criteria you think should be added? I can think of many that would probably make the article more interesting, but they would also tend to introduce more POV over what is a legitimate defensive use. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that entries fail GNG, which is of course what lists are sometimes good at fixing, but it's that just as a list of crimes with a firearm (or whatever criteria), no practical wikilist could come close to being even a representative list. For instance, the robbery criteria alone is something that's regularly in the papers, and that's just from what I hear in my local area. Of course if you removed that specific criteria, then it becomes an odd list though. Nationwide, over the 100 year+ span the list already considers, I can't imagine how a list like this could even be representative. Perhaps I'm overestimating the number of incidents this would apply to, and I'm aware it need not be comprenhensive, but it at least needs to give some sense of scale. That's my main concern, and why I think an article addressing the topic, rather than a list, is the way to go.

A list limited to mass murder incidents, for instance, would be much more manageable. A list limited to murders might be possible too, but I suspect even that may be overly ambitious. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you either misread the criteria or are making an argument where you missed a step in your argument. This is not an article about crimes, but an article about where people defended themselves from crimes. Are you saying the list should be limited to only defensive incidents where they defended themselves from murder? That seems a tough article, as if they were successful it would not actually be a murder, and if they were not, then they didn't manage to defend themselves at all? Or are you just comparing this article to a hypothetical "list of murders" article? If the later, certainly in both cases we would only be able to document a subset of incidents (even a subset of well referenced incidents). However I personally see a value difference in the two articles (which is a POV I suppose), in that nobody denies the existence of murder and that incidents happen quite often - but many people are not aware of or ignore the concept of DGU, and therefore documenting and discussing them (of course in an NPOV manner) is a valuable effort. I certainly admit that that is a POV, but I do not think we have any policy which says articles which neutrally present a POV are disallowed (and in fact we have policies to the contrary) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Gaijin you have completely misread my comment. No, i'm not confused about your criteria, or the purpose of the article. My point is that your criteria encompasses so many incidents the list will never be

representative. I make an analogy to a hypothetical List of crimes committed with firearms

, which would be equally unmanageable. And before you say that we don't need "completeness" or that AfD is not cleanup, I'm aware of both of those points. It's not completeness we need, but a list that has 5% of the potential entries (and I fear this would always have far less) is problematic.

I suggest a more limited criteria as a solution. This would address most of my issues. Limiting the list to a homicide criteria is one option. And your concern about inchoate offenses is silly, you should easily understand this would include those as well (current criteria doesn't take attempts into account, but would clearly cover them as well; that seems quite obvious to me).

The tldr version is, the list criteria lends itself to such an expansive number of entries that are

so common even cursory representative coverage would be unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed criteria change : Add a criteria that one of the following must be included : 1) Rape, assault, murder, or credible threat (per RS?) thereof. OR 2) any crime involving armed perp 3) or child (<18) or senior (>65). This would exclude the masturbation event, and simple breaking and entering incidents where an unarmed (or not known to be armed) perp was shot/fled/etc without engaging the user (unless a child/senior). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're adding to the

talk) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Every element (of any list) does not need to be included. It is not OR to say "We are filtering the incident we choose to display", the same as we filter which quotes from notable people we choose to include, which pictures we choose to display, etc. As long as that filtering is done in a neutral way. If it makes you feel better, we can say this is "forming consensus on editorial discretion" rather than a formal change of the criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are creating the topic out of thin air. We can create countless meaningless "List of..." articles this way:

talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Nom rationale is nonsense. That the list is not complete is a very silly deletion rationale, also
  AfD is not for cleanup. The topic the list is about is clearly notable, entries are referenced and there are well defined inclusion criteria. All in all not only a list compliant to policies, but a good one at that. --Cyclopia^talk 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: This needs much more expansion. I have added an 1853 event where a slave attacking an overseer was killed in self-defense, and an 1928 event, where a husband killed his wife's lover in self defense when he walking in on the wife and the lover. There are many many incidents like this that should be added to this article. The number of times slave owners were saved from violent acts by defensive gun use alone are immense! I am very concerned that article as it now is very narrow, just trying to include defensive gun use situations under 2012 standard of morality. The fact is that defensive gun use to enforce legal acts now thought horrible goes back to the invention of firearms, and should not be omitted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the least compelling arguments from the "keep" side is "this might be the only list of its kind". That's the definition of
  what Wikipedia is not. It's not our job to compile the first ever list of defensive gun incidents. Let alone a list that is impossible (not hard -- literally impossible) to populate with any verifiability and accuracy. Just look at the mess of the inclusion criteria. "Yes this, except when it's that, except when this or that." Particularly the part about how we have to go into the legal system to decide whether an act of gun violence was an act of self-defense, or an act of murder. It's as impossible to maintain as "list of motor vehicle accidents" or "list of people who have slipped and fallen on icy sidewalks". This AFD has become a magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby. But so I'm not accused of being a shill for the other side, I will also add this: there IS an encyclopedic topic to be made about defensive gun use, and the number of lives saved by defense. But the way to do that is to write an article with statistics, instead of trying to make it into a list of individual anecdotes. For a phenomenon of this frequency, statistical data would be the only accurate way to represent it. Anecdotes are highly prone to undue weight (in favor or opposed). So in the alternative to deletion, I would support a wholesale rewrite. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale:

deletion policy. --Cyclopia^talk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If 2 possible people is "A magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby", that's got to be about the weakest lobby in the universe. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question how incomplete of a list is this? Right now, there are about 30 entries for 2012. If this was mostly a complete list, as per the current criteria, would there be 300? 3,000? 300,000? I would say that if there were only 300, it might be a stretch to maintain, but my impression is that is much more likely to 300,000 than 300. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of DGU (depending on definition and survey method) vary from between tens of thousands, to many hundreds of thousands, however under no circumstance would the list be able to include even a small percentage; because only a small percentage of those are reported on, and therefore

WP:VERIFIABLE. The number that is reported on is orders of magnitude smaller (by my own count, or that of websites which are compiling similar lists), and serves as a first-level notability filter. Reported on is in the low hundreds with 0-5 per week maybe and of those some do not pass our current criteria, and less would bass the proposed criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per JClement's sound analysis, a very poor deletion rationale, being an incomplete list is not a reason for deleting anything, WP has no deadline and the article's subject is obviously notable, sourcable and expandable. Cavarrone (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As said below, it has less than 100 entries right now. It is estimated there are 10s of thousands of such incidents in the U.S. each year. This list is already trying to cover as far back as the early 1900s. Even if those numbers are limited to those reported on, we're talking hundreds of listings per year. Incomplete is not the reason; completely unmanageable is. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point, however when and if the list will became too long we could

  ITSTOOLONG is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete a random selection of incidents. Next:
  talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale:

deletion policy. --Cyclopia^talk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me clarify. I am not asking for modification of the inclusion criteria, I am saying there is no possible set of inclusion criteria that is not original research and does not generate a random selection of trivial news items. That we can generate a set of inclusion criteria for

talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You are misquoting the criteria. There is no restriction in the criteria of illegal guns used for self defense. the only restriction in that vein is that criminals in the act of ocmmiting a crime should not be included, which is a major component of most

Castle laws Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This is moot. The criteria are still OR. -

talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I find it hard to believe that this is a true representative list as it shows no case where the gun owner shot a bystander by accident. It is also prejudicial as it does not show the events where there was a gun owner present who couldn't do anything without hitting a bystander. This only shows GDU in a 100% positive light and is obviously created for an agenda. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for reasonable cleanup.

deletion policy. --Cyclopia^talk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We do not include accidental shootings, because that is a different topic. We also don't include cases of consensual relationships in the list of rapes. Is that a POV issue? An individual article does not need to represent all facets of a topic, if it is about a specific facet. The hypothetical example you propose is a worthy topic on its own though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, assuming the existence of a list of rapes, we absolutely would include cases of "consensual relationships" (because if one doesn't consent to sex, it's still rape, even if one is married or in a relationship). What we wouldn't include = instances of consensual sex. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's about the basic definition of the list inclusion criteria. Take another look at what LegoTech is saying: that many instances of gun use which were intended for the defense of self or another, and which therefore are "defensive gun use incidents," didn't have the intended result of deterring an attacker while keeping non-attackers safe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying with delete. Original research as the choice was made to include off duty cops as if they put their training and experience in their locker along with the uniform. Its a random set of incidents that match the point the creator is trying to prove. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The police exclusion is not

wp:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep This feels like a deletion that is politically motivated. I'm pro gun control, but this article is very relevant. This is a topic that is discussed "in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists areery common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them." I agree completely with a previous contributor on this issue of deletion. Johnandrus (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you there seems to be some political motivation in some rare cases, but I'm a little confused as to why. More to the point, the number of cases that fit on here is enormous. The low end estimates of defensive gun uses is over 50,000. The high end estimates are much more. That's per year, and that's just in the U.S. Even if we only list those reported in the paper, that's easily in the hundreds each year, and this list is going back to the turn of the century (the last one) already! The current criteria in this article means such a list is completely unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This article just got linked in a boingboing discussion on gun control, so may see an influx of viewers, and therefore increased attention to this AFD as well. http://boingboing.net/2012/12/18/generic-gun-control-debate-car.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP though i'm known as a left-winger and i'm not at all ashamed of that, i can't condone wiping away this article even though i'd prefer (just politically and personally) that it weren't here. we must at least act like WP actually is neutral. the deletion request SO reeks of POV that even i must oppose it. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want to keep the article because you feel the nomination was not in good faith? You've provided no evidence of that. Please address the issues raised in the nomination. -

talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• comment however, it is likely that whatever anyone says, this article will be deleted --just like that one about Forward being a historical name for socialist-associated media, which it is, being deleted as soon as president obama picked it as his 2012 campaign slogan. (of course to me there is nothing dishonorable about using a historically socialist slogan --nothing to be ashamed of!) as soon as POV obama-defenders thought it might look bad for obama to be socialist associated ^[why?] they got it deleted. this article will go the same way. and i will be glad --but also slightly worried that we really are making a mockery of the supposedly 'neutral' stance we supposedly take, and that we might thus someday lose some credibility. of course we editors are mostly educated, civilized, NOT right-wing knuckle-dragging types and sometimes our preferences show. of course. but we must try harder to LOOK objective. my gut tell sme that killing-off this article would do too much too soon to make us look like the enlightened partisans that most of us are. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is off-topic and has no place here. -

talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ah no it isn't, mr/s i-have-a-PhD-and-want-all-to-know-it. if it weren't on the topic, i wouldn't have added it here. your quibble reeks of POV. and believe me, as a really POV person at times, i know POV when i see it. we probably agree on a lot of things, since i'm (according to critics) really obviously way out in left field. fine. i'm not going to repeat my reasons for being nervous about deleting this. they're above for all to see. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cramyourspam, please

keep civil. --Cyclopia^talk 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. It seems to me that it would be very desirable to have some sources that address the topic of listing past defensive gun use as a whole, rather than compiling a list of one-off news reports. As it currently stands, I think the article is verging on
  WP:SYN, and that is an issue that needs addressing. I do not think the "criteria" section below is an adequate remedy, since it suggests that Wikipedia editors will be judging which news reports to include based on criteria studies of defensive gun use in various—well, that's practically the definition of synthesis. (What would we say: "This incident would be considered a defensive use based on the criteria in blah, but not blah"?!) If we can find reliable secondary sources that list defensive uses of guns in the past, then we can cite those and reference the primary source literature (news reports). If we can't, then the article should probably be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Addressing the nominator's view that the article is POV, I would argue it is more POV to delete the article. The absence of the article would seem to imply a lack of defensive uses for guns. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why I have diligently added cases of slaves being shot in self-defense, the concept of self-defense in the United States is clearly tied to the killing of many unruly slaves who seemed not to realize they were property without any rights.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

This is copied from the prior AFD. These are the quotes from several of the studies used as sources in the article thus far, and the criteria used by those studies. The studies' criteria closly match the criteria for inclusion used by the article.

*comment regarding criteria (as well as showing notability of the overall list topic) (copied on article talk) There have been several US and international studies which have done research into the occurence of defensive gun use. These various studies have used various methodologies and slightly different criteria to measure DGUs, here is a brief summary of what they measured, which can be used to judge the appropriateness of the criteria for inclusion in this article, and possible changes.

• • From http://www.saf.org/journal/11/mauserfinal.htm (reprint of Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 24, No 5, pp 393-406, Copyright (1996)
    • Canadian Facts, 1995 (Note, Canada, not US) : Within the past five years, have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-rotection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” If the respondent nswered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).”
    • Center for Social and Urban Research (CSUR) 1995, at the University of Pittsburgh, surveying both US and CANADA : Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn’t fired?” If the respondent answered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).
  • from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103 (National Academies Press)
    • NCVS (National Crime Vicimimisation Study, (administered by US Census Beurau) (see also http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/) : To elicit defensive gun use incidents, the survey first assesses whether the respondent has been the victim of particular classes of crime—rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, or car theft—during the past six months, and then asks several follow-up questions about self-defense. In particular, victims are asked:Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on? Responses to these follow-up probes are coded into a number of categories, including whether the respondent attacked or threatened the offender with a gun.
    • National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 : The survey, which focused on firearms use, first assessed whether the respondent used a gun defensively during the past five years, and then asked details about the incident. In particular, respondents were first asked:Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.
  • Excellent meta-study comparing many of the above studies and several others, http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
    • NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, US DOJ) : Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired,to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Respondents who reported a DGU experience are then asked 30 additional questions concerning the most recent such experience. Topics covered include whether the use was against an animal or a human, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the location of the incident, the crime involved, whether the perpetrator was armed, and what the respondent did with the firearm in the incident

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that you have developed for the list may be based on the above research, but it isn't close to being identical. This non-trivial criteria for inclusion is what makes it

WP:OR. Developing the criteria further to keep the list from being huge just marches further along the OR path. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Limiting the list by date might be appropriate. It could be done by decade, 5 or 1 year periods. Ellipsoid1 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - absurd concept, cannot possibly cover the millions of "defensive" incidents, inherently POV due to non-neutral wording "defensive", lacks
  talk) 13:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"Defensive" wording is directly from reliable sources discussing the topic. Other places has less defensive gun use, so its not surprising that the article is America centric. Other places don't play gridiron football much either is that a

WP:WORLDVIEW problem? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep: Events should be summarized and shortened, but nevertheless, would be of high interest to readers who are knowledgeble about the subject -RoseL2P (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as violating
  WP:POV. What a cheerful cherry-picked list of gun brandishings. Both the list entries demonstrate and the inclusion criteria seem intended to choose incidents in which defensive gun use: 1) was successful, 2) was deemed justified, and 3) no bystanders were harmed. Out of the defensive gun uses each year in the U.S. alone (2.5 million according to pro-gun activists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz; 108,000 in 2008 according to the FBI, each a potential entry), the list of entries (as of this date stamp) doesn't include a single case in which a bystander or other innocent was killed or injured by the defensive shooter. The list and the sources from Cato ("The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.") and the RedditDGU ("...dedicated to cataloging incidents in the United States where legally-owned guns are used to deter or stop violent crime") seem intended to promote the idea that defensive gun use is entirely a positive thing. In truth, defensive shootings are sometimes unsuccessful (Cato's Tough Target pdf, pg 3; [3], [4]), unjustified ([5], [6]) and messy ([7], [8]). This is a case of advocacy and framing the argument unfairly. Failing delete, Move to to the more accurate namespace List of defensive gun use incidents which were successful and justified. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are making up criteria that are not part of the list. There is no "No bystanders were harmed" criteria AND no "successful" criteria. The reason such incidents are not included is... because the editors have not found any yet. I do not deny that there are cases (many cases?) when people use guns to harm people - but those aren't defensive gun uses. Make a list of "shootings where self defense claims were rejected" For example Jesus C. Gonzalez would be a great addition to such a list. "Defensive gun use" even with your hypothetical cherry picked criteria - is still a notable topic. It is discussed in many books, articles, studies. It deserves an article. Negative aspects of gun usage also deserve articles. Go make them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tatyana Arntgolts

The result was Keep Changing my mind with the additional sources. No other delete opinions so I'm closing this early. ThemFromSpace 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Arntgolts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I haven't been able to find significant coverage of her in reliable, third-party sources to meet

Since Arntgolts' fanbase is in Russia, and I can't read Russian articles, I would be open to persuasion if reliable sources were found that document her achievements. ThemFromSpace 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found this which mentions her work with Ice Age and this where she is mentioned as part of a "Beautiful Russians" list. Unsurprisingly, Google News Russia was more useful, providing results here and here. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent with Russian but she seems to be well-known. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep per meeting
  through regular editing. And though itself NOT a reason to keep, she's even on the ru.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Can you provide any specific reliable sources that cover her in detail? I have already googled her name in Russian but I haven't found anything that passes the GNG. Lists of google results don't help any; specific sources are what is required. Also, can you tell me which of her acting roles on IMDB are significant enough to pass WP:ENT? I'm trying to keep an open mind here, being sympathetic to language bias, but I don't think your links help any. Of the sources I've looked at this interview this is the closest to what we need, but even that hardly evidences notability. ThemFromSpace 05:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent. The lengthy 1982 interview in Люди is quite good. Information on this actress' background is found in several ЕвроСМИ articles: [13][14] and we have Комсомольская правда (1) Комсомольская правда (2) Дни.Р KM.RU Комсомольская Правда в Украине Комсомольская правда' (3)' Комсомольская правда (4) Комсомольская правда (5) and many others dealing with she and her works in a something more-than-trivial manner and offering us enough sourcable information so that a decently encyclopedic article can be maintained. Even without her having English coverage in

  WP:NRVE... that would not in itself be a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep, possibly Speedy Keep, as concerns by the nominator were addressed. Cavarrone (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Switching to keep, I'm satisfied with her notability now. I'll go ahead and close. ThemFromSpace 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pascua

Jon Pascua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has only played in the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As stated above. Govvy (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natacha Peyre

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

The subject (or someone claiming to be them) has requested that this article be deleted; in

• Keep - first of all we can not be sure it seems that the one requesting this is even her someone in Miss Peyres entourage. Secondly this article passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Soon we will have stars like Paris Hilton requesting that their articles be deleted, lets not set a precedent.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I do agree with the IPs opinions at the talk page which I guess could be Natacha, that the article needs to be somewhat rewritten in another style.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but re-write and improve sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her Notability is marginal, sources weak and incidental, her encyclopedic value minimal. I see no harm in allowing the request. Martinlc (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do think there could be harm in allowing the request. In the future other "glamour models" could request deletion and get their articles deleted per this AfD no matter how notable they are. And natacha is really known in Sweden and the problem here is the article quality not her notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Marginally notable, and since she wants it deleted it falls under
  WP:BLPDEL#Deletion_of_BLPs_of_relatively_unknown_subjects. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In what way is a "actress, singer and glamour model" a "non-notable figure"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
    • That doesn't say "non-notable figure", it says "relatively unknown". Those two phrases cannot mean the same thing. If they did mean the same thing, that policy section would be completely meaningless, since articles about non-notable figures should be deleted under other sections anyway and that section would add nothing new.
      • Apologies. I meant to say "In what way is an 'actress, singer and glamour model' a 'non-public figure'?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are misreading it. That section has two reasons for deletion. The first one is for relatively unknown figures where the subject has requested deletion and there is no consensus. The second one is for non-public figures where nobody opposes the deletion. She fits the first reason, not the second, and the second is the only one that requires being a non-public figure. They are not the same thing--for one thing, "no consensus" implies that someone opposes the deletion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The full text of that section is:
            "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says (my emboldening): "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.
            Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was wrong about the wording, but I still don't think it means what you think it means.
              WP:WELLKNOWN says that public figures have many reliable published sources. Even if the legal definition of "public figure" includes all actors however obscure, Wikipedia obviously isn't using the legal definition (since obscure actors won't have many reliable published sources). Sufficiently obscure actors should be eligible for deletion under that clause. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • WP:WELLKNOWN discusses what to include in an article, not whether or not to have one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • While that is not about whether to have an article, it shares terminology with other policies that are about whether to have an article.
                • Specifically, it uses the term "public figure" in a way which implies that actors are not automatically public figures. So you can't claim that because Natacha is an actress, she must be a public figure. You were claiming that above. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And where did I do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "In what way is an 'actress, singer and glamour model' a 'non-public figure'?" That is a claim, using a rhetorical question, that because she is an actress she must be a public figure. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Now you appear to be making things up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section is about deleting articles about people who are notable, but marginally notable. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sweden's largest newspaper gives me 186 hits for this person. That tells me that the article could easily be expanded. Nymf _hideliho! 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Aftonbladet is yellow-press, and borderline reliable at best. That being said, I won't !vote in either direction since despite being Swedish I have never heard the name but on the other hand it's not a subject that holds enough interest for me to try to look for sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I guess that Natacha has left her glamour model days behind, but that doesnt mean that she can erase her past. She did not complain when she earn cash from the glamour modeling. We have to stand by our choices in life. She is/was one of if not the most known glamour model in Scandinavia for a long time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. It does seem that it is simply a case of regret. Anyone under 30 in Sweden would know who Natacha Peyre is. She is by every definition a public person. Nymf _hideliho! 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Though Peyre could not in any way be described as "important" from a more serious viewpoint she is certainly well known. A couple of years ago she was all over the Swedish newspaper bills. /FredrikT (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This is a run-of-the-mill juvenile attack article by schoolchildren aimed at schoolchildren. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casey swag

Casey swag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'd almost say this might border on vandalism or perhaps a hoax. I highly doubt it meets notability requirements.

• Delete the article even states that no sources exist and that the term is not widespread. I don't think we can brand this as a hoax since it's perfectly possible the term is used in some high school somewhere, but it certainly doesn't meet or even attempt to meet
  WP:NEO. --Noiratsi (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in a
  WP:SNOWstorm of nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete as vandalism. I suppose it isn't technically a hoax, but that's why G3's so vague. Or, failing that, it seems like it's the first
  Je vous invite à me parler) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While this article was kept at AFD a few months ago, subsequent discussion, or lack thereof, has shown no interest in fixing the problems identified in the close, defining its scope, providing any sources, or otherwise justifying its existence. This is a completely

See Talk:List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel, where I explain many of the reasons this list is unencyclopedic: among them, that the definition of "leader" is arbitrary (no attempt is made to distinguish between political and spiritual leaders even when such a distinction actually did exist; people with minimal power, like Mattathias, are included because they're Jewish icons, while party leaders are excluded), that users who want to keep the article as is have refused to provide sources after being asked repeatedly, and that there is no encyclopedic common link between, say, Jewish subordinate rulers under other empires and modern PMs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article certainly has
  WP:RS and the POV can be cleaned up. - Presidentman talk
  ·

• What are the reliable sources*, and how will you clean up the POV?

*That discuss the subject, obviously. Simply providing a reliable sources about Abraham or Maimonides or Golda Meir is unhelpful here, since each obviously has his or her own article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source, and the POV can be fixed through editing. -

Talkback) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're going to have to do better than that. If I ask you for specific sources and you link me to a library, you're really just confirming that you cannot actually find any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It includes a biographical dictionary. -

Talkback) 13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, so I suppose that the "Top 50 American Jews," "Fashion Icons," and "Athletes" featured on the page are also Jewish leaders in the land of Israel? Fascinating! (Really though, this is pathetic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep any issues are ones to be solved via editing, not deletion of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People said that last time and then reverted the efforts to improve the article. This comment is in bad faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the prior discussion, or the issues since then.

WP:CLEANUP and we do not have a deadline. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Doesn't change the fact that it happened. It wasn't about passive failure to act, but about actively working to make sure the article was not improved. We don't have a deadline, but we do theoretically have content policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Nothing have changed from the last nomination.The article is properly sourced by
  WP:RX 09:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The fact that nothing has changed from the last nomination is exactly the problem. Attempts to
    fix the POV/synth/scope problems after the last AFD were reverted by POV-motivated editors who evidently wished to keep the article as a propaganda piece. Saying "these problems can be fixed through regular editing, so we should keep the article" and then actively opposing efforts to fix the problems does not demonstrate good faith on the part of users who wish to keep the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per
  coatrack for an underlying POV of proving that Israel belongs to the Jews. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Definitely a useful list, and a helpful sub-article for
  List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep a list of Jewish leaders of the Land of Israel. This article scope should include only the top leader, and not individual rabbis. Marokwitz (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Marokwitz: Considering that the Orthodox don't give credence to the Israeli chief rabbis, I'd say your reasoning is rather biased. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what bias you are accusing me of, but present-day Israeli chief rabbis, should not be on this list, in my opinion. They are not the "Leaders of Israel". Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the leaders of Israel have been secular. Marokwitz (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we already have a list of Israeli prime ministers. Your comment fails to explain away one of the essential problems with this article: its conflation of religious and political leaders, people with authority and people with a following, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Due to political and religious changes, the Jewish people in the Land of Israel were ruled by different types of rulers in different eras - sometimes religious ("Nasi" = "President of the Sanhedrin" or high priests) or secular (Kings, or modern day Prime Ministers). If there are people with only "a following" and no actual authority, they do not belong in this article. The inclusion criteria could be phrased this way - the appointed leader of the central legal body of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • While your reasoning may stand up for the "community" in Israel 2000 years ago, the existence of a "central legal body" is disputable today. In Jerusalem alone, there are groups that do not acknowledge the state and abide by the rules of a different "leader". The page focus must be narrowed and revised to List of Jewish political leaders in the Land of Israel to avoid vagueness and all-inclusiveness. Yoninah (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even Marokwitz's reasoning would result in the gutting of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yoninah, the opinion of fringe groups who do not recognize the government are irrelevant. Your argument that Israel in modern days does not have a "central legal body" is absurd. Israel is a stable state with a democratically elected leader. There are many fringe groups in the USA who don't recognize the authority of the Federal Government. So what? Does that mean that Barack Obama is not the American leader? Marokwitz (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not disagreeing with you. But when I come across a page with the name List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel, I am inclined to add all the Hasidic Rebbes and poskim that the Orthodox community considers its "leaders". Calling it "the Land of Israel" rather than "Israel" is adding a religious tone that leads me to this conclusion. The page name really needs to be revised for clarity. Yoninah (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Calling it "Israel" would imply the article is about the modern State of Israel. I recommend clarifying the inclusion criteria in the article lead. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My gut feeling says "delete", as it's a messy article with synthesis and OR issues. But it does not seem to match any of the fourteen reasons given in
  WP:DEL-REASON. I also have a problem with the nominator's use of terms like "grossly obvious POV aim" which looks a bit like a failure to AGF. I think it's generally a good idea to focus on the content of the article rather than trying to read the minds of the contributors. Still, I do tend to agree that it's a pretty awful article. Tigerboy1966  23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

striking my Keep, the article may fall foul of

WP:NOT. I am now officially neutral.  Tigerboy1966  23:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for reconsidering. Though, since you point to DEL-REASON, I must mention that my argument above is that this article falls foul of 6, 7, and 8 - since no one has been able to find sources on "Jewish leaders in the land of Israel," thus demonstrating that the topic is notable and non-synthetic, rather than simply asserting that a bunch of disparate groups have all been Jewish. (beyond the fact that DEL-REASON is not exhaustive - "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, again The article still provides a comprehensive list as described, broken down by era and still backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. The previous AfD closed with an overwhelming consensus for retention and this just appears to be an attempt to take another bite at the apple. Alansohn (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD also closed with a statement that problems should be fixed through editing, but no one apparently cares about that part of the close. This so-called "comprehensive list" is a bunch of existing lists weakly glued together with the aim of proving a political point and, more importantly, without any actual sources. A lengthy reflist is useless if none of the refs actually support the topic, and you're not going to find a source that draws a lineage from, say, the geonim to the PMs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as in the past two AfDs. And as repeatedly explained that being Jewish means to belong to both a religion,
  WP:POV dispute. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Okay, I've read over this comment twice but I don't see a keep rationale here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like my first rationale, combining biblical figures with modern figures and figuring out what they have in common with the vague terms of "leader" and "Land of Israel" is a violation of our
  original research policy. Secret ^account 06:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete; this is OR at best, and a political toy at worse. Any list whose inclusion criteria are so broad as to include all those people under the same heading is meaningless except as a political talking point. I would support its existence if there were reliable sources that put those people together in the same grouping; until that happens, this is
  synthesis of cherry picked individuals. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note. I have not been involved in editing this article until now. Today I started making some corrections, removals of incorrect data, addition of reliable sources, and other enhancements. The lead has been improved to accurately define the topic. I confirm that there are are still remaining problems with factual accuracy and sourcing of this article (For example, Ezra was not governor of Judea). But I still believe that the topic of the article is legitimate, and any remaining problems can be fixed through editing.Marokwitz (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a list masquerading as the usual Wikipedia pro-Israel POV really, and it is not surprising to see the usual names support retention. As others have noted, a coatracked, synth mess that does not belong here. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfectly acceptable list, and with 35 references, which is not a requirement for lists, it is better sourced than 3/4 of the articles on Wikipedia.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to respond to any part of the deletion rationale? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jews have a long history with the approximate geographic area of Israel. I don't think it matters that religious, military, and political leaders are mixed together in this list. Religion to this day plays a powerful role in commanding people's allegiances. Military might and political leadership obviously constitute hallmarks of ethnic coherence. I don't think the reader can be assumed to be so unsophisticated as to fail to make allowances for leadership of different sorts to emerge in response to differing problems and threats besetting a group of people at different points in their extensive history, in relation to an approximate geographic area. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "leader" is so broadly defined, the list becomes meaningless. A scientist might be a leader in her field, or a musician in her genre. You are essentially proposing "List of notable Jews." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a straw man argument? Are there any scientists or musicians who could fill that role? Are there any scientists or musicians on this list? It is conceivable that one could exist. But this is hypothetical for me because I can bring no person to mind who could fulfill that role. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reversing my earlier opinion after a lot more consideration. I think that the various sections would be fine as separate articles, and many of them already exist as such. Putting them together like this is
  LIKE IT, so I'm not saying this lightly.  Tigerboy1966  23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tigerboy1966—is implication a reason for deleting an article? There can be gaps in Jewish leadership in the land of Israel too. This list documents reliably sourced notable examples of Jewish leadership in the land of Israel. Are there examples of Jewish individuals commanding the allegiances of large numbers of Jewish people in the land of Israel? Can we document them? Should an article be deleted because such documentation "implies…continuity"[15]? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should be deleted because it's synthesis. Like I said, the separate lists are encyclopedic: putting them together in one big article is not. Tigerboy1966  08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's a mis-interpretation of the synthesis policy. We have many list and outline type articles which do not have a single source covering the entire list. See for example

WP:SYNTH, what is forbidden is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This article does not reach or imply any such conclusions. Marokwitz (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Are there any gaps in leadership? Until one examines the list for discontinuities one cannot conclude that continuity has been established. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historically relevant and pertinent.--Zananiri (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this addresses nothing anyone has said. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD is yet another attempt to suppress information on the Jewish connection with and continuity in the land of Israel, something which is well established history recognized by all serious scholars. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. "Censorship!!!1!!one!" is not an appropriate response to a clearly explained policy-motivated nomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete This is original research. No one has provided a reliable source that lists "leaders of the land of Israel". Even the name "land of Israel" is original research. It combines modern Israel with ancient realms that editors consider to be Isreal. We do not even known if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob even existed. We are combining people in Genesis (which includes Adam and Eve and Noah) with Benjamin Netanyahu. That would be like having a list of kings and queens of England from King Arthur, with his advisors Merlin the magician, Sir Galahad and Sir Lancelot, to Elizabeth II. TFD (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about "Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel" , not "leaders of the land of Israel". If you think that mythological figures do not belong in this list, this can be corrected by editing, that is not a deletion reason. The vast majority of people on this list are real ones. Marokwitz (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TFD, my initial reaction to your English-monarchs example was "yeah, good example!" but then I realized that that's only a very small part of the problem. Obviously drawing a lineage from the patriarchs to the PMs is grossly POV, but in the English monarchs example, there is actually continuity from William to Elizabeth, continuity which is not present in this list - there is no inheritance of power or role from the King of Israel to the Chief Rabbi to the Prime Minister. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: If there are issues about the article then tagging the page would be more constructive than deleting it -RoseL2P (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tags aren't permanent badges of shame - they're meant to prompt improvement of the article. I did better than tagging the article - I edited it in an effort to improve it - and was reverted by one of the users who had claimed in the first AFD that problems could be solved through talk and editing, so the bad-faith "it just needs editing" excuse falls flat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waddy Werewolf

Waddy Werewolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete Wikipedia is not news and I think the article is misleading anyway.
  AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objectiveli

Objectiveli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD.

• Delete Two PRweb pieces and an August 2012 review that describes this as a "web app still in its Beta phase" and "still in its infancy" indicate that this is too early and too little noticed to meet the
  notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for now - Agreed, it's probably too soon as much of the links are press releases and other primary-like sources and Google News provided nothing useful (aside from a blog written by the founder). I also found this which reads as if the founder, Ritu Raj, wrote it himself. This interview with the founder which briefly talks about him, wouldn't be much help to this article. As I said, it seems too much of the links, at this time, are press releases and other primary-like sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah's second posthumous album

Aaliyah's second posthumous album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Yet another rumour-filled article with a dearth of reliable content. Sources from the same day make contradictory statements (BBC says Missy Elliot knows nothing of the project, MTV quotes Missy Elliot's discussion of the project, no one tells me whether I care about Missy Elliot's participation). Looking over the history of the article, it's just been one rumour after another. Fails based on

• Leaning towards delete or redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album - Agreed, it seems this "posthumous album" is something Drake is pursuing himself and it seems her family recently refused to be involved. Google News has not provided any useful sources aside from the rumours. What concerns me is that, although one single was released, there hasn't been any solid information about the album. Naturally, this has happened before with other posthumous work but, at best, this is better mentioned at Aaliyah's article, and it currently is. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  ²¹ 01:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect as suggested by SwisterTwister. This source looks to be one of the better ones, but until an actual name is confirmed, any reliably sourced content should sit in the main article for the time being, per
  WP:HAMMER. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David McCue

David McCue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Vanity page, not notable for BLP with a passing mention and subject's own company website failing to pass GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional and the one third-party source doesn't provide much and some of the sentences in the book read like an advertisement. I found a profile at inc.com here confirming they ranked once but the book claims they ranked twice. Google News found little evidence when I searched "David McCue" but a search for "McCue Corp" provided relevant links (they require payment but two if not all three appear to be press releases). However, the second page provided more relevant evidence for the company, a New York Daily News article (though it would be insufficient), an award here and this which actually mentions David McCue himself. An attempt to find additional evidence about the Inc. ranking was fruitless. If there was an article for the company, I would have suggested redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I would have expected us to have an article on McCue Corporation if it was notable. Since we do not, I have to assume that its founder is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bogus article, fails
  talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Close as keep by nominator - AfD self-retracted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Gruzis

Evan Gruzis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at

• Keep Article needs work, but he's notable. Coverage in
  WP:CREATIVE? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sarah Oppenheimer

Sarah Oppenheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at

• Userfy The article looks fishy - quickly-created promotional article, by a brand new SPA who obviously already knew how to do Wikipedia articles. Actually they quickly created a whole set of crosslinked articles; see DUVE Berlin (also just created by the same SPA) and the list of artists (with even less sourcing than this one) in that article. But it's only one day old. Existence of wp:notability-suitable sources looks possible, if not likely. There should be a chance to see if wp:suitable sources can be added and brought back into article space then. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change / update based on subsequent work by Colapeninsula. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick Google shows coverage in New York Times[18] and Wall Street Journal[19] as well as other briefer mentions in the NYT, Art Review, Artforum, etc, some of which I've added to the article. This article needs work, but she's a notable artist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm just pointing out here that the article about the DUVE Berlin gallery has just been deleted for the second time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs more clean-up. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Succo

Chris Succo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. Fails to meet criteria at