Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 26 December 28 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy redirect to

British national day. Speedy redirected as an obvious redirect target exists. In the future, redirects like this can be done without coming to AfD. The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

National day for the United Kingdom

National day for the United Kingdom (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)

Does this article really need to exist? It's utter nonsense, basically (of course there are English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and indeed Cornish national days) and its supposed subject is detailed excellently in the

British national day article. RobinCarmody (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:53, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixudo

Mixudo (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)

Promotional article about what is essentially a web hosting company with a homegrown

WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Hi, Whilst I can understand your concerns with your findings, I had done similar research, but had concluded the following;
It is not a requirement for websites using Mixudo to display a 'powered by' slogan, nor any text referring to Mixudo at all. The platform had come to my attention from my Journalist years in New York, via an investment banker.
Nonetheless, I shall try to obtain further third party references in support of the page as I believe it to be a well founded software, which is, at least, non-commercial.
Kind regards MarcelBrandon (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I trimmed out the worst of the promotional fluff from the original draft, but now there's not much left. No assertion of notability per
    WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment An SPI that involves the author(s) of this article has been opened. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:FreeRangeFrog has been found on numerous occasions being hasty to add deletion notices and jumping to conclusions. I have, and will remain polite throughout this discussion, but there does seem to be a bias in this users character to 'destroy' efforts of new contributors. MarcelBrandon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't reproduce my signature, it's confusing to other people. I'd suggest you stop worrying about me and go defend yourself against the sockpuppet allegations; or better yet, go source your article so other editors can decide whether or not it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies, I had mistakenly copied more than just your name. However with all due respect, I didn't come here to become a self-advocate for silly allegations of dishonesty, because I'm not about to attempt to prove a negative. I am indeed only interested in sourcing my article, because I didn't choose to give up my time to help wikipedia by wasting my time on false allegations. MarcelBrandon (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The supposed Caldwell Banker reference leads to a wordpress-based spam board that a WHOIS search shows to have nothing to do with Coldwell Banker. Other references are either simple quotes of press releases or passing mentions of the company. I don't see where anyone anywhere has found this organization to be that noteworthy. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has a complete lack of reliable sources which actually discuss mixudo. The references are either A) affiliated with it in some way (this includes the http://coldwellbankerbcr.com site mentioned immediately above by Uncle Milty -- the whois matches http://mixudo.com) or B) sites which use mixudo but don't actually talk about. Intentionally or not, this appears to be nothing more than a promotional article for a non-notable CMS. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:15, 31 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.

WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Giovanni Battista Armenini

Giovanni Battista Armenini (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)

Biography of an Italian 16th-century art historian/critic/academic. It relies heavily on primary sources, and I have failed to find any secondary sources to back up the notability claim. As a result, he fails the relevant notability guidelines at

WP:ACADEMIC. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG. Inappropriate nomination from user who identifies himself as being in secondary school. Anything wrong with that? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Just because the user is in secondary school doesn't mean anything, I myself am in secondary school and I have nominated several articles, this users may have submitted this with bad-faith or just misunderstood. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all make mistakes in our first few AFDs, no big deal. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:19, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dyllan Bernardo Zimberknopf

Dyllan Bernardo Zimberknopf (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. Biographical article about a model that fails

WP:BIO. I was unable to establish notability. Author relies on the idea that notability is inherited. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News searches provided nothing relevant and I don't think there is enough to support a merge or redirect. Although being an Abercrombie & Fitch model is significant, there aren't any reliable sources and several models never receive appropriate attention. The newspaper sentence in the "Personal life" section is vague but from what I understand his mother is from the Walton family (of Wal-Mart). Either way, notability is not inherited through the grandmother or this alleged Walton relation. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to concur with the others after doing a search. Mabalu (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Pochanski

Erik Pochanski (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)

Footballer who fails

WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 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, badly formatted copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Role of the Feedback Loop in Solving Addiction Problems

The Role of the Feedback Loop in Solving Addiction Problems (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)

Wikipedia is not an

∆и∂ﾚ∑ㄚ 21:47, 27 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mothership EP

The Mothership EP (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)

Unreferenced article about not-yet-released and not-yet-notable EP album. Fails

WP:NALBUMS, etc. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 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.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

List of football players by passing accuracy

List of football players by passing accuracy (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 per

WP:NOTSTATS. C679 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 20:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete - Good grief! I've seen some pretty ridiculous stat pages, but this might just top the list. Delete and snow close per above. Go Phightins! 02:59, 29 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. Tricky one, this. Consensus seems to be that, whilst coverage exists, it is insufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Should the subject indeed write a bestselling book in the future, pass the professor test or become notable for other reasons, the article can be recreated. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Essien Etok

Susan Essien Etok (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)

Reason: Not a notable person. Citations and references are not notable, many of which are simply links to the subject's own blog. Many of the citations lead to unverified claims. Shritwod (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Added: I note that a request for creation was previously denied for similar reasons: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Susan_Essien_Etok Shritwod (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have left a message on Shritwod's talk page asking him not the do any more canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise that it wasn't permitted. I felt that the article had changed very substantially since the AfD went up, but point noted and I won't do it again! Shritwod (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Truth be told, I never heard of this person before this AfD as wierd as that may seem to some people. But now that I have looked into this, I can see why she may be upsetting a lot of Michael Jackson fans. The bottom line is that the MJ drama doesn't really come into this. She was very notable prior to ever meeting him. Things like being a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum in London make her very notable. And like Andy Warhol, MJ liked to surround himself with others who were notable in their own right. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I absolutely do recommend this article to be deleted. Let's look at the Michael Jackson connection first: there are absolutely no independent sources that make a connection between the subject and Michael Jackson, but there are several that carry uncorroborated claims of some sort of relationship, the primary source appears to be the subject herself. Some of these claims make no sense - she is quoted as being a medic, but she is a PhD, not a medical doctor. Secondly, this person is just a PhD holder that works in a museum, and there are lots of people like that. Although there are reliable citations for some articles, there are only some very poor secondary sources for editor work. And I don't think that being a news editor for a trade journal counts as being notable. Finally, I suspect that the person who wrote the article is either the subject or someone closely related, several edits were made by 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in the same geographical area as the subject. Shritwod (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how you feel. This person could be a complete fraud. I understand that. But being a fraud does not exclude her from an encyclopedia article. To perform a fraud on this scale is notable in and of itself. I never heard of this woman before today, but I see you-tube copies of her interviews, articles in the most major of publications, and sourced affirmations that she was notable prior to any association with MJ. Perhaps you are right, these sources are unreliable, but that would make her one of the most major hoaxsters in the last 100 years or so, and that by itself would warrant an article if true. There is simply no way around this. I would suggest that if you think she's a fraud that you put the info into the article, because there is no chance that this article will be deleted with all of the sourcing and citations it has from major news outlets. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is presenting conjecture as fact. The only notable thing about this person is that they claim to know Michael Jackson. But the evidence provided doesn't support that. The news reports are based on gossip and apparent self-promotion, even the news outlets use qualifying words such as "claim" to indicate that they are not asserting them as facts. Yes, you could re-write the article to say that she *claims* these things, but they should not be represented within the entry as verified facts. 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shritwod (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - The deeper I look into this, the more apparent it becomes to me that Etok is a terrible self-propagandist and publicity-seeker. Her claims about herself are all over the place: businesswoman, model, intellectual property specialist, actor, with every self-generated non-reliable source the claims are different. I believe that she got a degree in materials science, was an editor for journals in that field, co-wrote some journal articles, and is (or was) connected with a museum, but almost everything else seems to be conjecture, spun out of the air. Unfortunately, given that conclusion, it's very difficult for me to believe that Respect77 is not connected in some way with Etok, or is perhaps Etok herself. One way or the other, the view of the subject that has emerged for me does not support her notability, and we should not reward her fantasies with an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck part of my comments, as it's still possible Respect77 is simply a fan and not connected to Etok. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious, if you have no connection with Ms Etok, then how is that that you are the copyright holder of a studio photograph of the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg - which you uploaded to Wikipedia? It clearly says that you are the copyright holder, I cannot find a copy of that photograph anywhere else online. Either you are not the copyright holder, or you are related to the subject. Oh, and please don't try to insinuate that I have any interest in Michael Jackson at all, and I would appreciate it if you desisted from making vague legal threats as you did on my talk page. Shritwod (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shritwood, you have tried to bully me all because I wrote an article about someone that you don't like and who said things about MIchael Jackson that you don't like. First all you tried to get the article deleted on the basis that the article is not about someone notable, now you are claiming that I am close to the subject of the article. Please make up your mind which one. I am not close to the party in the srticle or have ever met this individual. There are 12 pages of google that have Dr Etok's picture on are you saying that you checked every single one? With respect to making legal threats, I did not threten you. You are the one who has been theatening me. Other editors have noted your behaviour. You have spent the last 24hours focused on killing my article at the bequest of Michael Jackson fansRespect77 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)
Respect77, perhaps you should take a leaf out of your username before you make wild accusations. Let me answer your questions point by point. 1) I don't care about Michael Jackson one way or another, I noticed the article because a link was added to the "Notable People" list in the town where I live. 2) I believe that you are both close to the subject of the article and the subject is not notable. 3) Yes, I checked all the photos, but you claim that you own the company that took it. You also claim that you downloaded it from the subject's web site. Which is it to be? I sent an email to the copyright owner to clarify. 4) You are threatening me now, you threatened me when you said "You have also made some comments in the article for deletion section about the subject in the article that could land you in legal hot water" on my talk page. 5) I am attempting to have the article removed because I believe that it is an abuse of process. Shritwod (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another question for Respect77 - you say that "Dr Etok has been in the local newspapers alot and most recently last week". I checked the websites of Bedfordshire on Sunday, the Luton News, Herald & Post, the Luton and Dunstable Express, Bedford Times & Citizen, and The Comet (the local newspaper for Hitchin where you claim that the business you own is based) and I can't see any mention of Ms Etok since September 2009. I can't find any press reference at all since this article in March 2012 - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2605269/Michael-Jackson-wanted-British-doctors-baby.html (which contains many unverified claims). Perhaps I missed all the articles in the local press? Can you give me some pointers? Shritwod (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we don't seem to be getting many replies from the original author, but here's another question.. you say "I am not a Michael Jackson fan/non-fan", but if I type your editor name (Respect77) into Google.. well, what do you see? That's quite a coincidence. Is there some meaning the the username that I'm not getting? It must also be a coincidence that the subject of the article was born in 1977? Shritwod (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - comments like She was very notable prior to ever meeting him. Things like being a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum in London make her very notable are complete jokes, and show a total lack of understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please inform us William Connolley what a Science Associate at NHM is. For your information, I have verified this with NHM and it is an accolade bestowed upon external researchers in recognition of their work. Science Associate is not a job title given to an employee at NHM Respect77 11:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I can find no such reference to her being a Science Associate at the NHM on their own web site. Please provide a reliable citation. Shritwod (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment was deleted because you copied another editor's question to you without his permission to do so. You're more than welcome to move your own words, and to characterize the question asked of you in your own words, but you should never move another editor's comments without permission. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. In all of my years at Wikipedia, I have never encountered that particular consensus, (in fact I thought that Wikipedia:Etiquette stated that it was perfectly acceptable to quote an original post in a reply). However I am very human, and prone to any number of errors and amounts of ignorance, and your reputation is golden. I am sure that there is a very good rationale for the action, therefore, I will only say that another editor attempted to carry this discussion onto my talk page, and I moved the conversation back here where it was then deleted by the same editor. I will not restore it, as I did not erase it, but those interested should have no trouble finding it in the archive. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay I could point you to a number of people who would dispute that my reputation is "golden", but my thanks anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: you can quote, but you can't move the comment in its entirety - at least that how I understand it. In any event, all one has to do is ask if it's OK, and then you can use the entire comment. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I think the "quoting" refers to a talk page reply, not moving a quote from a talk page to a project discussion. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have an argument about it. None of this is worth that. I asked you to restore my comments. You have chosen not to do so. I am sure that you have your reasons. I accept them. It doesn't mean we have to dislike one another or anything like that. You seem like a decent sort of person to me, a good Wikipedian. So no worries! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments about moving quotes was meant to be informative and not argumentative. I am restoring your comments as requested:

(restored comments by Sue Rangell)

Oh no not at all. But thank you for asking. All of the arguments in favor of deleteing the article have to do with her being a fraud, which may well be true. (I really wouldn't know, I actually know nothing about the subject) However, notability has nothing to do with any of that. Fraud or not, she has had independent coverage from reliable sources, and in the end that is what will matter. The article has no chance of being deleted, no matter how many angry Michael Jackson fans join in. The final consensus will come down to how much coverage this person has recieved, right or wrong, and she has recieved quite a bit. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge To Death of Michael Jackson. I suggest a compromise here that will enable us to keep some of the relevant information in the article and dispell the issues of COI and notability. Let's look at the facts:
* That this person was involved in the investigation(s) surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson is not under scrutiny here; that fact can be easily sourced.
* Her relationship with Michael Jackson cannot be established as a fact since all sources on this merely quote her, as journalists are wont to do. However, that is irrelevant because we all know that notability is not inherited.
* Her notability prior to Michael Jackon's death is in my opinion not enough to get past
WP:PROF
or any of the other critera, as a journalist, or scientist or anything else.
* If her standalone notability is not enough to get through the GNG threshold, then this becomes a clear BLP1E issue, and as such the bio would merit deletion.
So, what we sometimes do in these cases is to simply merge the non-biographical information about the involvement in the event into the even't article itself. As with other BLP1E's, at this point it's my opinion that this merits no more than a sourced paragraph in the Death of Michael Jackson article. I am volunteering to perform the merge. Two final things:
* I agree with the suspicions that other editors have raised about the involvement of the article's creator with the subject. The inclusion of Ms. Etok's height and the names of her parents in the infobox, plus the existence of a studio-quality photograph that is tagged as having been submitted to
WP:OTRS
is another red light here. However, COI or whatever this is is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since we're not discussing who wrote the article or who provided the image, but whether or not the subject's bio merits inclusion.
* To the claims of canvassing - yes, I was "canvassed" in the sense that I was asked to revisit my opinion in the light of additional information, and I thank User:Shritwod for having done so. I am always willing to revisit an AFD !vote, because the point of the deletion process is not to get rid of stuff, but to find reasons to keep it.
Maybe this isn't what the warring parties are looking for, but it's a good compromise, I think, and one that has precedent in AFD. And all of you need to chill out, too. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any content worth merging? The Jackson trial judge "excluded a number of defense witnesses, including Etok, from testifying at the trial on the grounds that the subject matter of their testimony was sufficiently convoluted, distracting and detracting as to substantially outweigh any probative value whatsoever": the allegation that Jackson offered her a loads of money for drugs is based solely on her saying so, and rather than denigrating Jackson or whatever (I am not a hysterical fan) is actually a claim for significance on Etok's part. Incidentally, what has she been doing since 2007, apart from possibly knitting socks for Bubbles?TheLongTone (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Questions - I think that some people are not understanding what notability actually means. In Wikipedia, it means, and I quote from the guidelines, "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" Now compare that to one of literally thousands of articles out there such as this: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/P25xMPEUly_/Dr+Etok+at+LAX Yes, yes, I have heard the cries of "unreliable source", "fraud", etc. It would not suprise me one bit if she is a fraud, most of these kinds of people are. But this particular fraud has been in literally thousands of news articles, TV, radio, NEWS magazines, etc etc. (Major names, not just tabloids) She's writing a book that will be a bestseller. She has accolades from the London Museum of Natural History, etc. but none of that matters. The woman, (Yes probably a fraud!) is the media equivalent of an atom bomb, she clearly cannot be ignored. There is absolutely zero doubt that she has "recieved significant attention from independent news sources". Can anyone argue this? She meets all notability guidlines unless you begin wikilawyering. That is why this article is a Snow Keep, and as time goes on, well, wait until her book is out, it will all start all over again. Can you, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that she is not notable, even if she's a complete and total fraud? If the accusations against her are ever proven to be true, she would certainly be notable as a great hoaxter, as the fraud itself would be notable at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sue: No one can argue with your perception of the article or the subject's notability, but you should take a look at
    WP:SNOW and the circumstances in which it can be applied. While it surely is possible that the article will be kept -- although the consensus seems to be moving in the other direction -- "SNOW" just does not apply, since there is no unanimity, and the fate of the article is not a "foregone conclusion", as required for a SNOW close.

    We also generally do not keep articles on the basis that there might be notability in the future. If that happens, the article can be re-created at that time, but we usualy don't keep it around on the off-chance that it might pass our guidelines in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Thank you, I am well aware of Wikipedia proceedures. But there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted. It is a foregone conclusion, even if a few canvassed editors and Michael Jackson fans cannot see it. If someone spends their time in a swarm of Paparazzi, they are probably notable. This article should have never been brought up for AfD, and all of the "She's not notable!", and
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and unsubstantiated claims of "fraud", etc., etc. will not offset the deluge of media that surrounds this woman. It doesn't matter if half of them are simply repeating her words. It doesn't matter if she is lying, etc. What does matter is that all eyes are on her. It's a media circus, and that makes her notable, now, at this moment. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's say for the moment that you are right, and there is a "snowball's chance in hell of this article being deleted (I'm not an admin, but I don't think that's the case, but let's take it as given for now) - that doesn't equate to a "snow keep" close, it equates to a "no consensus", an entirely different thing.

If I may also argue the article's content, the problem with it is that all the coverage -- even that which comes from normally reliable sources -- is ultimately based on Susan Etok's own claims. In the wake of Jackson's death, and the trial of the doctor, there was the usual media frenzy, and pretty much anyone who seem to have even the merest sliver of legitimacy could get their 15 minutes of fame by giving out interviews, which were then used as the basis for more interveiws, etc. In the new media ecology, once something is "out there", even those media outlets that should know better will pick up the reports and repeat them, and the scandal-mongering entertainment press will report just about anything which will get a headline and keep people watching or reading. We, however, are an encyclopedia, and we have a much higher standard - or should, and do most of the time. Since we mostly deal with these things after the fact, we have the time to evaluate the quality of these reports to see if they have real roots, or are essentially self-generated. In the case of Susan Etok, everything seems to emanate from her - even the "legal filings" in the doctor's trial are based on her statements to the defence, and the judge did not find them credible enough to allow the jury to hear them.

The mere existence of a media circus doesn't make her notable, although if it was extensive enough (and, believe me, whatever "circus" there was was entirely minor and not teally of note) the circus itself might be notable, but that's not the case here, and if it was, it wouldn't necessarily make her notable per se.

As for her being a world-class hoaxer, I'm afraid she's really small potatoes. She got a bunch of people who will print anything to print her claims, but it really doesn't look as if anyone involved in serious journalism was taken in by her. I'm afraid that even as a liar, she is hardly notable at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Well, you certainly make a well-thought-out and eloquitely spoken argument. Obviously I have to disagree with you this time around. Ultimately an admin will come along and either keep or delete this, and on we will all go to another adventure, correct my friend? Feel free to drop by my talk page and say hello. I have to travel in the morning. Be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll agree to disagree, absolutely no problem with that. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claims that Ms Etok makes of being a long-time friend of Jackson's may well be true, but there are no reliable citations to back it up. I could post on my blog that I am Elvis Presley, it does not mean that I could cite it in a Wikipedia article about myself. Every single reference seems to go back to unverified claims by Ms Etok having done this and that. But the real danger that Wikipedia faces is this - the article as originally written unequivocally says that she was a friend of Jacksons and makes several other attempts to reinforce that view, despite there not being any strong references to support those claims. As we all know, Wikipedia is often the first stop for journalists in a hurry who don't tend to question what they are reading, and some of them would repeat the claims with no further questioning. Then what do we get? Yes, we get an apparently independent news article claiming that she was a friend, and that's the start of a circular reference of a self-reinforcing "factoid" that was never properly proven. And given the evidence of the copyrighted studio photo, it seems extremely unlikely that editor Respect77 is unconnected with the source, and if that is the case then it might be argued that this is an attempt to manipulate the encyclopaedia, which is obviously something that we don't want. Shritwod (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, I've read your comments quite closely but there are some things I just don't understand. One is that you say that "She's writing a book that will be a bestseller", but I wonder how you know that for certain? Yes, a best-selling author would likely pass notability criteria, but she is not a best-selling author at this date. Secondly, who are these "Michael Jackson" fans? Which editors are you referring to? Thirdly, what is this deluge of media? Google news throws up two articles for the whole of 2012, only one of which might be citable. Are two articles in 2012 "the media equivalent of an atom bomb"? Shritwod (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the sources on her article, meets the GNG. Likely meets
    WP:Academic based on her Google Scholar results, which also back up her scientific credentials.  The Steve  08:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • My quick google scholar indicates that she has 2 papers (using yours, I see 4, with another couple of greyish ones). That's a clear fail (either way) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (@Thesteve) There's no need to wait for someone else with access to academic databases - I just checked Web of Science for "Etok S*" and it lists fifteen papers with citation counts of 11, 4, 1, 1 and the rest zero. Scopus lists six papers with citations of 14, 6, 1, 1, 0, 0. That is way, way below what is required for a pass of
    Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ah! Very good. Now, for comparative purposes (and because I'm interested in such things) can you name 2 notable Materials Scientists and give their citation numbers. Thanks!  The Steve  09:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be getting a little off-topic. The long-standing convention is that h-index of 10 to 15 is the lower minimum (i.e. at least 100 to 200 citations) and this person is nowhere near these figures (and these are the GS numbers, not the more conservative WoS numbers). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment [12] and [13] are informative about the subject, curious that no mention of this activity is made in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quote possible that I'm missing something. but I don't see in TheLongTone's links anything pertinent to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She has set up some kind of media consultancy business. Such people are likely to promote themselves, calling the motivation behind the creation of the article into question. I would expect this activity to be mentioned in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see "Essien" and "Essien IP and Company", but I don't see any specific connection to Susan Essien Etok. Again, is there something I'm missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am similarly perplexed.
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, you have to click the "People" tab in the second link. Didn't realise the link was not a direct connection. The company is cited as source by the imdb entry.TheLongTone (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that just now; I wish you'd made that explicit earlier. So other than naming Susan Etok as a (the) director, the link doesn't have any information, although "IP & Media Ltd." would seem to imply an intellectual property & media consultancy. Since she has no training in intellectual property law, and her media experience appears to be in putting over her fantasies to the media, I wish the best of luck to anybody who hires her as a consultant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a celebrity gossip site at essientv.com run by the subject. Shritwod (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the fact that she is so NN that no-one can work out her current occupation relevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very.TheLongTone (talk) 19:13, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Sports Academy

Forever Sports Academy (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)

Principally promotional material and no indication that this topic has been covered in independent sources. C679 20:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 20:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The material has been at leat in part copied from their web site. It's done with permission so it is't a copright violation, but that does mean the article is promotional to the point that I'm severely tempted to nomiante it for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC money laundering hearings by the US Senate

HSBC money laundering hearings by the US Senate (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)

Wikipedia is not a

NOT a repository for every senate hearing in existence. Seems to already be a contentious addition/edit war on its relevant page, HSBC and certainly doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

After lengthy discussions and consensus, this topic consists of 4 or 5 sentences on the relevant HSBC page. Hardly warrants its own standalone article--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While consensus at HSBC may have been to limit this topic to 4 or 5 sentences, it's a major event and deserves coverage. RogierBrussee listed some of the key reasons over on that talk page. To quote the first point of their summary: "This so called "incident", was practice over a 10 year period involving knowledge of senior staff. It involved billions of dollars in drugs money, illicit trade with rogue countries, business with terrorist financers and clearing hundreds of millions in phoney traveller checques." This piece in the New York Times makes clear the notability of this event: it's both recordbreaking and has raised major controversy over whether a bank can be 'too big to jail'. More:
So, yes, this definitely should be a standalone article, especially if there's not enough space to cover it on the main HSBC article. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I am still !voting delete, I don't like Hu's throwing around of the term consensus in relation to what [I assume] is the limited discussion on the Talk:HSBC page. AfDs provide a centralized place to have consensus and poisoning the well with "we already met consensus" when I don't see it, doesn't help further the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree. I should add that I'm willing to contribute substantial revisions & research for a new page at (possibly) "HSBC money laundering". Should I go ahead and make this happen so people can see what a new page might look like? (Of course others can contribute also.) I'm quite sure there's enough material out there to justify a full article on this topic. groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 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 Withdrawn - Thanks to XLR8TION and Cavarrone for their improvements to the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Weston

Josh Weston (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)

Newly created biography of recently deceased porn performer. Fails

WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per meeting
    WP:GNG are clearly met. Cavarrone (talk) 06:08, 29 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. Per

WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Sweet Temptation (film)

Sweet Temptation (film) (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)

Fails

WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Variety review and the following print sources. Doubt it will be more than a Start-class article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 00:15, December 29, 2012‎
  1. "Tonight's drama almost rises above its lurid premise. A divorced caterer, her 16-year-old daughter and mom's 'fantastic' lover slip into a sticky domestic triangle and endure the explosive consequences. Beverly D'Angelo brings emotional complexity to passionate pastry chef Jesse Larson, torn by desire, guilt and resentment. 'I'm going through my second childhood,' she says. A strict, overbearing mom in her 40s, Jesse tries to control restless, lonely, asthmatic Jade. Jenny Lewis from 'Brooklyn Bridge' and 'Shannon's Deal' embodies sexual confusion as Jade, an insecure teen with a glum outlook. 'Silk Stalkings' dropout Rob Estes is suitably arrogant as lusty restaurateur Billy Stone, a divorced dad who wants to be Jade's stepfather. He's younger than Jesse, and she calls Billy her 'warden.' He demands 'constant' attention. He gets more than he can handle."[1]
  2. "CBS has a potboiler at 9 p.m. Wednesday on KSTW-TV - 'Sweet Temptation,' basically a reworking of the Joan Crawford classic, 'Mildred Pierce.' Beverly D'Angelo (whom I admire greatly and who deserves much better than this) has the Crawford role with Jenny Lewis as her sulky teen daughter (originally Ann Blyth) and Rob Estes (of 'Silk Stalkings') as the cad (originally Zachary Scott) who romances both women. This new version hasn't the class of the original."[2]
  3. "Sweet Temptation (3/6, 9 to 11 PM; CBS) is no less than Rob Estes deserves for having quit on Silk Stalkings. So he feels neglected by older girlfriend Beverly D'Angelo, too busy with her catering business. So does Beverly's teenage daughter, Jenny Lewis, feel neglected, as well as horny, even though she has a collie to play with. She plays instead with Rob. Everybody will live unhappily ever after."[3]
  1. ^ Grahnke, Lon (March 6, 1996). "Teen Tempts Mom's Boyfriend As `Sweet' Romance Goes Sour". Chicago Sun-Times.
  2. ^ Voorhees, John (March 4, 1996). "Three good-looking series get rolling on ABC, CBS". The Seattle Times.
  3. ^ Leonard, John (March 11, 1996). "John Leonard's Video Notes". New York.
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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Samuel Gibert Scott

Rev. Samuel Gibert Scott (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)

Seems to be notable neither as a reverend nor as an ornithologist, and so fails

WP:RELIG/N in particular. Who's Who tended to include members of the clergy fairly indiscriminately until recently, and isn't much use in settling the question of notability. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I did consider that, but the Ibis at that time seemed to publish perfunctory obituary notices of all its members. The obituary itself is here, and certainly doesn't suggest that he was in any way notable as an ornithologist, noting merely that "he never published in ornithology". Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single obituary isn't enough to make him noteworthy. Membership in the British Ornithologists’ Union alone is not enough to make him noteworthy. And his vacations to Scotland to observe birds and to fish certainly don't convey notability. As mentioned in the article "he did not contribute to ornithological literature". Also: ROTFLOL that anyone would refer to Ibis as "august" :) Majoreditor (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same reasons as Majoreditor. The only independent source is Scott's obituary in a specialist publication. The article makes no particular claim of importance. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet
    WP:BIO notability guidelines, notability being neither claimed nor any shown. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Appears to fail
    WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 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. (

ey 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Wenvoe Castle Golf Club

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

Unremarkable club - the claims to notability are weak. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. WIkipedia is not a directory. We do not need to have every single minor golf course listed. Biker Biker (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It isn't a minor golf club. Its one of the most notable in the county actually. Wenvoe Castle and grounds has historical significance in the county, It has surely hosted numerous events in Wales, such as the Welsh foursomes Championship here. 87 different newspaper article hits.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per demonstration of notability by Dr. Blofeld.
    AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep has 3 references meeting the
    WP:GNG Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 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. (

ey 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Aylesbury Vale Golf Club

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

Unremarkable club. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep satisfies WP:GNG due to two independent sources included. It does not matter if notable competitions are held there or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 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. (

ey 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Dunstable Downs Golf Club

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

Unremarkable club - the claims to notability are weak. No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence was 2 seconds away, it hosted the British PGA Matchplay Championship (News of the World matchplay, plenty of sources to indicate notability.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why Biker thinks he's doing cleanup duty but golf courses are very poorly covered on wikipedia and if you look on google maps form a major part of the United Kingdom around towns, I believe that most clubs are worthy of coverage and will have coverage in reliable publications whether its books or local newspapers. I consider them geographically, and in the case of the Wenvoe Castle club historically notable to the county. I think that if wikipedia is truly to be a comprehensive source we'd have decent articles on many golf courses in each county.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Dunstable. Hosting a PGA tounament takes it beyond the run-of-the-mill. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that it passes WP:GNG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:02, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winter (Starbucks)

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'm completing this nomination for an anonymous IP, which is also the same that PRODed the article in the first place. Their justification for the PROD was that he lacked notability per

(｡◕‿◕｡) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I also wondered if the article should be about the movie. If the sources mainly talk about the person as the subject of the movie, probably so. If they talk about him without the movie then he's the one that's notable. I don't think his name has anything to do with the question. If he was mainly known for his name I would not vote to keep, even if it was legally changed. BigJim707 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen, the earlier articles (2004-2006) all focus on him and his Starbuck quest rather than on his name or on the documentary, which didn't really begin filming until 2006. From 2006 on there are a few sources that focus on the documentary, but almost all of them are predominantly centered around him. He gained media attention long before the documentary and even after that the documentary is usually not the main focus of the interviews or articles. It's mentioned, but it's not the bigger thrust of the articles. I did debate renaming it after the movie since it'd make for a better looking title, but most of the coverage centers on the Starbucks thing rather than on the documentary. It's kind of one of those things that isn't entirely a good fit either way. He's gotten attention for "Starbucking", but then other than the documentary name I haven't seen that term used a whole lot in the non-documentary focused articles. But in any case, he did get a substantial amount of coverage. I just didn't want to bog down the article with any more sources than I had on there already. In the end I'm just not comfortable renaming the article for a documentary that while known and gives his notability that extra push to make me fight for the article, isn't really what he's known for. He was in the media before then.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And you're the one who completed it for me. Thank you. You then voted. And so did I. Not sure what the problem is, but thanks for being a good wikipedian and helping out. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that as the nominator, your delete vote is already counted into the nomination. Since I only completed the nomination, I could still do a "vote" in the bottom. I could've put it all in the nomination, but that wouldn't have been fair. :)
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, does
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Supposedly Lozano aka Smith got a legal name change in a Texas court (or that's what he's been telling everyone) to the mononym of Winter. Since you contacted him, he can easily post on his website a copy of the court order, or a suitably redacted ID, such as a driver license, passport or social security card with his mononym as the sole identifier, which should pass muster. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten a really quick reply so as soon as I get a confirmation that I can upload the picture to a photobucket account or otherwise show the image, I'll provide a link to his drivers license that shows that he got the name change.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Is there a repository for such documentation that can be used for future (if not permanent) reference? There shouldn't be an issue if the subject also posts it in the section of his website for media reference, given that it is there that he also implores the media to use his assumed name. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the commons area? I'm a little weirded out by the idea of posting someone's license on there though, even with the sensitive data blanked out. I'm sort of paranoid when it comes to personal data on the web.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Here's an image of the DL: [17] I've been given permission to put the photo in my photobucket account so it can be shown here, but if all else fails I guess I can leave it uploaded. I've got like 3-4 photobucket accounts, most of which I rarely use anymore.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The DL looks, on its face, to be a valid indicator that the subject is now legally monomymous. Since you are in contact with Winter, perhaps you could suggest that he ADD the photo to his own website[18], as contemplated above? Thus, the article can be updated with the appropriate reference. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets the GNG. Life is stranger than fiction... The Steve  09:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We do not determine directly if something is notable. In particular, we don't decide if visiting a lot of Starbucks is something worthy of note. Instead, we turn to coverage in reliable sources to make that determination for us. There is certainly lots of coverage, so the question is whether this is a case of it being just a one event phenomenon. If the coverage was just a blip at the start with no sustained interest, I would support deletion on the grounds of it being one event. However, the coverage has been sustained over a period of years which for me lists it past the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was made into teabacon. The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teapigs

Teapigs (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)

Apparently fails

reliable source. There are at least 2 blog entries ([19][20]) and reviews from users in a tea review site, though, don't know if these are reliable sources as they are user-generated. Lakokat 16:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Menny Rabinovich

Menny Rabinovich (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)

Not notable per

WP:ACADEMIC. His achievements consist of getting a PhD; establishing the "Intelligent Nutrition Center", which seems to have received no coverage; writing several newspaper articles; possibly contributing to the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, though this wouldn't in itself satisfy any of the notability criteria, unless he were the chief editor; and developing a dietary supplement. The latter, again, has received no coverage, except for a single article in "Shalom Life". I could find no mention of Rabinovich himself in either the English-language or Hebrew press. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. The subject fails multiple notability tests. Majoreditor (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes:
    • The corresponding Hebrew article has been userfied for lack of notability.
    • There seems to be an advertising issue here. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Now I've made up my mind. No mentions of his discoveries or inventions in anything but primary sources (i.e. vendors) and directory listings. No Google Scholar results (beware of a different scientist named G. A. Rabinovich, who also researched curcumin) other than a patent filed by him and his wife. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well written, Meny did not write a lot. But he did a lot. Please do not delete, it's not an advertisement article. Yaacov Jacobrubinovitz 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Jacobrubinovitz 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yaacov, if you can find independent sources (sources not from his blog, or from companies that sell his products) that discuss him or his accomplishments in detail, please cite them. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added some things on importance in the article entry, Also the article is well written.Jacobrubinovitz 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Jacob, I don't see any significant changes in the article from the time it was nominated for deletion, besides for fixing some of the wording. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Greason

Walter Greason (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)

Not notable per

WP:AUTHOR. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Holy
WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
(1) Worldcat is a list of library holdings, not a measure of the number of times a work has been cited.
(2) Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search are better, though not infallible, guides. The latter lists one paper by Greason, which has been cited once. The former has eleven listings for Greason: one is irrelevant, three are book reviews by Greason, two are articles by Greason (no citations), one is a book by someone else, and one is a book by Greason. The latter is cited at least once in this article. His work is grouped with several others in two footnotes. Choosing one of those at random, "Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Community", which deals with a single neighbourhood in New York and was published nine years after Greason's work, I see that it has 280 citations. "Our Town: Race, Housing, and the Soul of Suburbia", which focuses largely on a single neighbourhood in NJ, has at least 105 citations. Even by the standards of his own discipline, he seems to be seldom cited.
(3) Anyone can join SACRPH. The board of directors has at least one assistant professor, the lowest, non-tenured postgraduate academic position. The executive has several associate professors, the lowest tenured position. I see no concrete evidence that being on the board or executive of SACRPH is equivalent to, say, a Guggenheim Fellowship or a Fellowship of a Royal Society. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: If you use Worldcat to measure the number of holdings worldwide, you'll see that, e. g., Marc Lamont Hill has 634 holdings compared to Greason's 57. The author of "Black Corona", incidentally, has 1,914 holdings on Worldcat, and the author of "Our Town", 10,630. Alexrexpvt (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 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 Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Than Ever (song)

Stronger Than Ever (song) (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)

Per

WP:NSONGS this song has not charted nor has it received awards/covers by several artists. There is not substantial coverage from reliable third party references and thus an independent article is not warranted as this is a stub which is unlikely to ever grow considering that this album era is also now over. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 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. No prejudice against recreating an English-language version, if anyone can work out what the article is about. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Шаталсан хаяглалт

Шаталсан хаяглалт (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)

Foreign language article not translated after two weeks -- Patchy1 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (contact) 16:19, 31 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Funkids

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

No assertion of notability per

WP:ONEEVENT of Junior Eurovision. Altered Walter (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 12:22, 27 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 no consensus. The article on Ryan Young should be listed separately (if desired) as it did not garner any significant discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Willmott

AfDs for this article:
Robbie Willmott (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)

Article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league and also fails

WP:GNG due to the fact that he hasn't received any significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related article for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Young (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Robbie Willmott - appears to meet GNG from the sources in the article and shown here (there's a lot of them, more than enough to satisfy it, even if a few are a bit routine.), plus plays in a grey-area league under
    WP:FLP. Neutral on Ryan Young - but with so many appearances for Telford, I'm sure someone will be able to turn up a bunch of sources about him as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete And
    WP:GNG or not. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Usually, I'd agree with you, as a lot of these articles are on players who have played very rarely, but these two players have a heck of a lot of appearances at certain clubs, particularly in grey-area leagues, therefore checking if they pass GNG totally valid. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the third AfD, but it has only been deleted once as the last AfD was closed as "no consensus", so no reason to SALT. And Lukeno94 is correct, the most important thing is GNG, not if a footballer played four minutes in a FPL.
talk) 15:43, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Harrison

Hank Harrison (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)

Selfpublished author of dubious notability, does clearly not pass WP:AUTHOR. Any real notability seems to come from relation to Courtney Love (a case of

WP:NOTINHERITED), in which case relevant information could be merged into her bio. Subject has edited the article to remove references to his complicated relationship to his daughter, and requested the article be deleted on the talkpage of User:Dougweller. This is not a tacit attempt to grant this request, but a test of whether the community finds him to be sufficiently notable to have an article. My instinct is no. Furthermore the article appears to have been created by the account User;Hankbuddha which looks suspiciously like it is also under the control of Harisson, as it has made strikingly similar edits to those of User:Stone Savant who uses Harrison's email address as its signature. IN this case the article was probably created as a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with promotional intent. I think the best course is to delete and if notable let someone who does not have a conflict of interest eventually recreate it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 08:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 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 merge to Shakira. MBisanz talk 21:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira's eighth studio album

Shakira's eighth studio 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)

Put down the

WP:HAMMER!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 06:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schaeffers

Tim Schaeffers (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)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails

WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject fails
    WP:GNG
    due to the lack of in-depth sources on the web. I am also tagging the following players for similar reasons:

Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Tom Biss and Luke Rowe have both played in senior professional games for Wellington Phoenix.Simione001 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the AFD tags from the 4 additional articles - they were not tagged by the AFD creator, and they were tagged after the discussion had started. Please nominate them properly and seperately. GiantSnowman 13:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rowe and Biss, as they have both played in the A-League, meaning they meet
    WP:NSPORT
    .
  • Delete the rest. They fail
    WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article claims he has played two matches for New Zealand A, doesn't that confer notability ?
    talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 17:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per lukeno94, player has not played in any notable matches. C679 09:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 03:00, 27 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 Lower level design. No clear consensus regarding High-level design; after discussion with the nominator we've agreed that a second AFD is preferable to relisting. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lower level design

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

This subject isn't notable. It is a concept in design, but not so significant as to require its own article, especially because the boundary between low and high level design depends largely on context. This can be dealt well enough, perhaps better, in other design articles that provide needed context. Sancho 05:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

High-level design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Lower level design, because it's a neologism at best and
    WP:OR at worst. However, Keep High level design, since it's a valid term, widely used and easily sourced (although it's a mess right now). I don't know that it was a good idea to nominate these two in the same AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Not notable
    WP:NEO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 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 Weak Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coles Whalen

Coles Whalen (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)

Deprodded with "sources" that are just

WP:ROUTINE coverage of her concerts. I found no substantial coverage, just "Coles Whalen will be in concert at X" and a couple blog sources that are on the fence at best. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, and some additional sources, not available online: Milvy, Erica. "Songs for Sensational Kids Vol. 1: The Wiggly Scarecrow", Parenting 19. 8 (Sep 2005): 237; and Coffey, Kevin. "On her way to a breakout: Coles Whalen returns to Omaha ahead of a couple of CD releases, including one with a major label", Omaha World-Herald 18 Dec 2008: go.16 Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:25, 29 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 Keep per

WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew Soltis

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

This person has no reliable third-party sources attesting to his notability in any way. His FIDE "card" is not a source for anything at all, and some website called "Chessgames.com" is certainly not a reliable source. Furthermore, the information in either "source" does not establish why the subject is notable or special either. This article may be blatant advertising for his self-published works. If not blatant, it still most certainly is advertising.

The only thing cited to any source at all is that the subject is a "grandmaster." That in itself does not beet the notability criteria. Now take out all the unsourced stuff and what do you have? A five word article that goes like "Andrew Soltis is a Grandmaster." So thus delete please.OGBranniff (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm sorry, nothing personal, but (to quote Dennis Brown) "I'd be lying if I didn't say" I couldn't stop from being amused, over the idea the Soltis bio would be considered "non-notable". (I know that's not an argument, and I haven't reviewed the status of the article regarding it's supporting refs, but this should be a SNOW KEEP, if that's possible in AfD, and anyone involved in chess for any length of time will say the same, I'm quite sure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs improvement (especially more references), but the subject is notable. Soltis would qualify as chess player and also independently as an author. Quale (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Ihardlythinkso and Quale. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a Chess player as well and I know very well who Andrew Soltis is. The problem is, here on Wikipedia, we can't take our insider knowledge from our "field" (it seems in all our cases, we are Chess players) . . .to deem someone "notable." There has to be outside reliable independent sources to back that up. If Soltis does qualify as a "notable" player there should be reliable sources that can vouch for his fame, notoriety, whatever. Like, we don't have problems finding third-party sources that vouch for Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, etc. The fact that such sources are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable under wikipedia standards. If he is not notable under Wikipedia standards then his article should be deleted. User:Ihardlythinkso even admitted he hadn't "reviewed the status of the article regarding it's [sic] supporting refs..." If he had done so, he would have had no choice but to "vote" Delete, per Wikipedia standards and rules. OGBranniff (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Content can exist on WP without supporting reliable refs, if reliable sources are available in the print world. (And for Soltis, there's no doubt about that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What are you talking about? Content CANNOT exist on WP without supporting reliable refs in articles on living persons. And if there are "sources available in the print world," where are they? Why are you not finding them and inserting them into the article here? OGBranniff (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OGBranniff, Soltis has even got an entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess (Hooper, Whyld), a "bible" of chess notability. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone saying that Soltis is "notable" without providing sources or rationale is just waking the specious argument of
WP:Clearly notable, which is an argument with no argument. As far as User:Ihardlythinkso's statements, I agree, sources in the "print world" are more than sufficient to establish notability. The print world is much more legitimate than the internet world, I would say. The problem here is, nobody has bothered to research these supposed "print" sources and include them in the article. I guess "Ihardlythinkso" hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article. Unless someone finds legitimate print sources, and inserts them into the article in a manner that proves notability, this article is going to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGBranniff (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. The article is almost certain to be kept even if it isn't improved at all. Despite this it would certainly be best if the article were improved. Since you admit the subject is notable, you should understand that it is frowned upon to nominate an article for deletion that you know to be notable just to try to force others to improve the article. Check
WP:BEFORE, section C1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That certainly applies here. Quale (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said I knew the subject was "notable." The closest I might have come to that is me saying that I'm a Chess player and thus knew who the subject was. That's about it. Never said he was notable. OGBranniff (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what you wrote that I believe Quale was referring to: "I agree, sources in the 'print world' are more than sufficient to establish notability." OGBranniff, I'm more than capable of researching and adding supportive refs, so I don't appreciate the presumptuous insult ("I guess 'Ihardlythinkso' hardly thinks he's capable of adding such print sources to the article."). BTW I agree with others the article needed improvement, in case you thought otherwise. I wasn't interested to do myself due to time & interest considerations, is all, and don't deserve your aggressiveness as a result, it's uncivil, please straighten up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the lazy pompous one... OGBranniff (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All you're showing w/ comments like that, is that you'd make an excellent WP Administrator. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I sympathize with both sides of this debate, as I do find this subject to be obviously notable but understand the need to demonstrate the bona fides when challenged. I've added seven cites to the article, and I assure you that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more available from RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep he is certainly notable, being in paper encyclopedias. I'm away from home right now, so I can't provide refs. Article does need improvement, though. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grandmasters have generally been kept, and this is hardly an anonymous grandmaster either. Since Soltis's column features in every Chess Life, and the subject has authored several books that have been independently reviewed, I would imagine that this is a bio that people would want to look up. The article is not a very good one (which is in part my fault, the person behind the IP who initiated this article is me, before I registered an account). However, an entry in the Oxford Companion, and Hobbes Goodyear's improvements to the article demonstrate that the subject passes the WP:N threshold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:53, 28 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.

WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

iPhone 6

AfDs for this article:
    IPhone 6 (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)

    Sorry, I must have been logged out when I was editing at my workplace. Anyways, I believe this article should be deleted as it contains no references and is based on pure speculation, which constitutes

    WP:CRYSTALBALL. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 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 no consensus but with severe reservations. The participation here is split evenly (7 keep, 7 delete) and it is normally a straightforward "no consensus" if both sides of the argument have merit and support for each position is even. But this is a close call, and in one sense I feel I am closing this with the "wrong" outcome in the sense that I would have voted delete had I participated in the discussion. However, there is enough merit in the "keep" argument for me to close this discussion with the standard "default to keep", albeit not enough that would have convinced me to vote keep.

    After looking at the discussion and the article, my gut instinct was that the "delete" side had a much stronger case. Basically the problem is that the article gathers together examples of products that media has described as "fastest selling", but where there is no well-defined criterion for what type of time period that is, nor if it is a product that was the fastest selling of its type at the time, or if it is the fastest selling ever. I was a bit alarmed when I read Coin945's (article's creator) statement late in the debate: "Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there." Coin945 should be commended for his honesty here, but I feel that the result is a list of products that are loosely associated by sharing a common phrase in news articles. In my mind, that is treading the line on

    indiscriminate information
    . The arguments by Ten Pound Hammer, Colonel Warden, and Jucchan are very strong ones in my opinion.

    But still, I am closing this with no consensus. What saves this article is:

    • The individual entries on the list are (mostly) cited, and should be verifiable. The lowest threshold of the contents in the article passing the
      WP:V
      policy is therefore met.
    • There is a criterion in the lead section that gives some guidance of what should be in the article.
    • Conceivably, the article does provide some navigational purpose if people want to look for products that were sold quickly when they were released, a topic that is of interest in consumer economics.

    There is enough merit in these arguments (which were given in some form or another by Richard-of-Earth, Northamerica1000, FreeRangerFrog, and Colapeninsula) to make this a no consensus, even though my concerns in the paragraph above are not fully alleviated.

    Note that some of the entries do not meet the criteria in the lead at all, for instance "Airbus A320" being listed as "fastest selling jetliner" makes no sense if we are going to judge this by sales in its first week. (Aircraft are not sold retail by the week, shortly after release.) There is need of editing here, but problems that can be solved in that manner are surmountable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fastest-selling products

    List of fastest-selling products (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)

    Author contested prod on talk page with the following:

    Because I think think this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions.

    My reasoning is that the list has no specific criterion for inclusion. Literally any product can be "fastest selling", the information does not seem terribly relevant, as this seems like an easy record to keep breaking and breaking. Also, there is no set criterion for the unit of time, as the article even elaborates on — comparing something that was fastest-selling in a week vs. fastest selling in 52 weeks is apples and oranges. As it stands, this is far too loose of a list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Because this article has a well-defined criteria for its content located in its lead section, and also keep
      WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Even though every example of fastest-selling is gauged to a different time period, thus making this entire list several steps beyond apples and oranges? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "Properties" section is a bit fringey, but nothing a bit of consensus can't fix. The other ones seem fine to me. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep "Fastest-selling" is a commonly used word in music and video games, with a definition given in multiple references, and attracting frequent media interest. I know some people think this is too trivial to feature on Wikipedia, but there is space for both high seriousness and well-sourced random information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not notable and trivial (fun to read, but not encyclopedic I am afraid.). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this article was nurtured, it could be as useful as the "highest grossing films" or "best-selling products" articles. As is, I agree with you... it is a bit of a mess, but if we put our heads together we can achieve something great indeed. I'm sure there's a very useful article just waiting to be unleashed.--Coin945 (talk)
    • Keep No valid rationale for deletion JayJayTalk to me 03:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Warden. The list is too trivial, and it needs a uniform standard of time. The products seem to be listed almost at random; "Game console (Japan)", "Pre-Order of 2012", "Barnes&Noble Product", "2012 Album (UK)", etc. What happened to Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010? What about Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)? What about 2002 rubber ducky and 1999 magazine? Jucchan (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said the article was complete by any means. All I did was dive right in, trying to find as many sources as I could as fast as I could to give the article *something*. Now, we can start to fill in the content coverage holes, and get rid of the worse material. I'd rather include every source I find listing something as "fastest-selling", and then sifting through it later, than excluding some for various reasons, and having to go back and find them all when we get back to it. I entirely agree with you. We most definitely need "Pre-Order of 2011 and 2010... Game console (US) or 2010 Album (Spain)". By all means, go out there and locate this informaiton. I'm sure we'll all be eternally grateful. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Indiscriminate list. - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a trivial and indiscriminate list of information. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Are these deletes based on the current state of the article, or on the topic's potential? If your delete is based on the former, let me say this: At the moment, yes the list is rather indiscriminate, but the information that would made the list discriminate is most certainly out there, and just has to be found. As I responded to Jucchan, the only reason it may look like trivia is because it is unfinished. If the "highest-grossing films" article was seen in this state, would you still be voting delete?--Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. The topic does not seem notable, and then the current state does not point me any way that it may be notable which I might have not considered before. When thinking about "highest-grossing films" I think total revenue (over time and over media) of films, I have some sort of criteria from the start. "fastest selling products" is what? 'fastest' is... sold most on first day? weak? hour? month? year? 'selling' is quantity? value? 'Product' is iPhone? iPhone4? iPhone3? cellphone? bathtubs? video games? video games for Windows? horseshoes? large horseshoes? small horseshoes? Golf clubs? seeds? farm? calendars? encyclopaedias? encyclopaedias? That sounds like the definition of indiscriminate. - Nabla (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in answer to one of your points, I suspect that the definition of "fastest-selling" will vary depending on the type of product involved. Obviously the categories will be notable in their own right, and so will the products within them. Also, if the "fastest-selling"... (i dunno.......okay i'll use the calendar example that you gave) calendar is notable in its own right, and we have sources to confirm this, grab that source and stuff it into the article as fast as you can. The fact that at this point in time, there are different measures of "fastest-selling" within the same product category, is merely a testament to the particular sources that I locates, rather than on whether the informaiton is actually out there or not.--Coin945 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We can not use as criterion that some newspapper called it "fastest selling" because newspappers do not have a set criterion. That you can not find standard measures is a hint that maybe there is none. How come your subjective perception that some criterion should exists, overcomes the fact, collected by you, that none was found? - Nabla (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can't say that my research was *that* rigorous at all, and was more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits, and latest few pages of ooglenews hits, and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there. Plus, I was having trouble with my computer (lagging horribly), so my work was cut short. I'm sure if I researched further and wider, the sources would show themselves. Yes: at the moment there is no strict criteria of what "fastest-selling" means... but in my opinion there is one.. or at least one for each product category. And theres only one way to know if I am right or not. Let's get to work! :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    «my research was [...] more like a quick flick through the first few pages of google hits [...] and stuffing a bunch of links into the article from there». I would bet so, and would won. It would work out so much better if instead of creating poor articles with this google-paste method, and then spending lots of effort - your and other's - discussing to keep or delete them, instead you took the trouble to create better articles... or chose the next idea and move on when that is not possible. - Nabla (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the topic is potentially notable (did that make any sense?) and looks indiscriminate because of the current state of the article. HOWEVER, because there are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of products and product types, the article will never be discriminate. The topic is too broad to begin with. What was the best-selling headphone in Rwanda? What was the fastest-selling type of sand in 1965 in California? What was the fastest-selling pajama in China for 1997? Fastest-selling brand of butterscotch in Finland, or in Tokyo, or in Seattle, or in Australia? Also, what timeframe will be used? First week? First month? First year? Although Brawl sold the most on its first week, Wii Sports sold the faster in its first 5 years. The possible entries are infinite (not literally). Jucchan (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my theory is that this article is on par with "List of best-selling products". That concept would probably also be indiscriminate in your view, but as enough sources had been located, the topic was split up into List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling singles, List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books etc... The only reason all the information is in this one article is because if I split it up now, there would be maybe a couple entries in each, which would just be stupid. I'm keeping everything in the one article until we have too much information in it, from where we can discuss various splits to have discriminate sub-articles. Plus, in accordance to what I said before, I do not know what "fastest-selling" means, but I assume that it is a notable topic, and expect it means a different thing depending on product category. I suspect all it tales is a bit of research to find this out for sure. Can any of you get past paywalls? I'm severely disadvantaged, especially in an article like this which probably requires a lot of news sources... :/--Coin945 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? You created a list about fastest-selling products without knowing what fastest-selling even meant? Wow. Jucchan (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not exactly what I meant. I know that in general "fastest-selling" refers to which product sold the most in its first week of release... but I also know that sometimes you start off with a fixed number of copies and you compare the amount of time is takes for them to get sold. I specified that in the intro. The sources, however proved that there are other ways of judging fastest-selling that I had not taken into account. I had assumptions, yes, about this topic that I deemed notable, but only once I actually started researching did I find that it may be a bit more complicated than it first appears. As I have said already, however, it may just be due to the specific sources that I found. There maybe be sources which deem a whole variety of different products fastest-selling by how much they sold in the first week.... and I just picked the dud articles that compare them based on arbitrary criteria. I don't know. But as I have said, even if different product categories have different measurements for fastest-selling, we should be able to create a well=sourced, notable article.--Coin945 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dambski Roman II

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

    No assertion of notability per

    WP:HOAX. Altered Walter (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't see any evidence where he is descended from either
      Talkback) 18:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    You're in political considerations. On wikipedia we must explain all. About the sale of nobility, James I (England), Louis XIV (France) have made that. About the pretentions of the dukes of Urach, are they more strong with a king who has regned a few months without to go to his kingdom? I think we must propose all pretenders but the article is in construction and it's impossible to explain all without some time to realise the article. I see that contributions about nobility are very politised and it's a shame. In 1994, while the Russian Communist influence was still felt in Lithuania, Roman Dambski was invited by Dr Jonas Stankus to attend a world congress of Lithuanian nobility in Vilnius. Around 400 people attended, over double the number who attended the gathering in 1996 which produced the present Lithuanian Nobility Society (LRUN), which uses the name Royal, but has no Sovereign. Roman Dambski was appointed a founding Senator of the newly formed Lithuanian Royal Nobility Society (LBKS) on 23 April 1994, but was subsequently snubbed by the 1996 society. Although accepting the Polish historical lineage by default, the LRUN does acknowledge that Lithuania was a Kingdom. It is that Kingdom which the present Roman Dambski seeks to restore in its fullness. Differents sources have been added to explain differents opinions. Please see them” Calleville— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calleville (talk • contribs)
    Self-published sources aren't generally
    Talkback) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Damski is a writter in differents domains. I don't understand why you haven't deleted this fake reference and you have probably founded the book wichh is adapted for the bibliography. Don't be partial and give access to the sources and excuse the eventual mistakes in this new article with imperfections Calleville —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but most of his "domains" appear to be nice little earners. If it's a "fake reference", then why did you add it in this edit? I see you've changed it now to another book self-published by "Prince Roman". Altered Walter (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've deleted the book with the tittle "Royal Lithunia" because I've seen it's a private edtion and we haven't ISBN code. I've tried to find it but it was a bad reference. Dambski is a writter and he edit differents books. For neutrality, I think we must propose only book with ISBN code. I've made a few articles on wikipedia. I've a lot work and some mistakes are possible during the redaction. I need some time. Some of them have been corrected by another contributors. Thank you! I see that another contributors help to create and correct this article. I'm french and my contributions are essentialy on wikepedia France. I'm doctor of history (contributions on wikipedia france about the general François Grouvel and the duc de Guines for example). I'm not specialy a Dambski's partisan but it's an original exemple of pretender who has declared in 2005 that Lituania is a kingdom with a king (him) who unofficialy reign from Australia (Darwin). He has accointances with a part of Lituanian nobility. An another part has snubbed him because they accept the republic and a pretender for the "folklore". I've insered links wich exprim the differents opinions. Dambski's example is interesting because we can see that the Litunian throne is controversed with him and the duke of Urach. I try to present this example with neutrality and objectivity. Create an article isn't make a panegyric about a pretender. You seem to have real competences. It will be perfect to help to create this article with objectivity. Please exprim your opinion with neutrality in the article and correct some mistakes before me. I'm french and my english isn't perfect. The article isn't ended but i must go to the countryside for Christmas. I'll continue in a few days. I've programmed a section with the different pretentions and the duke of Urach must be mentionned too. Thanks for your help. Best regards and happy Christmas Calleville (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    — Licinius123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

    The result was no consensus. KTC (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Yager

    Jamie Yager (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)

    Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep had exhibition fights on Spike's TUF as well as his pro UFC fight. Passes
      talk) 00:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Not according to the UFC's own records or sherdog or other major MMA sources or the original consensus at MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 02:58, 27 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yakut American

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

    Subject does not appear to be

    general notability guidelines I am proposing that this article be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Or it could be merged to Yakut. Perhaps it would be best to make this a redirect right now, but without protection. If anyone wants to develop this page to something better in a future, they are very welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Staszek Lem.
      talk) 14:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    May I remind other editors of
    WP:VOTE
    . Only stating that an article should be kept without advancing a reason per essays, guidelines, and policies why an article should be kept does not advance the discussion.
    The primary question in an AfD, is whether a subject is
    notable. No discussion has been advanced by those who oppose deletion, thus far, that the subject is notable per the guidelines and policies that define what notability is on wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not every person voting can come up with an entirely new set of opinions. If Staszek Lem outlined the arguments well, and very similar to what others would've said, then people can concur. I have also not seen an argument here why the topic doesn't meet the notability guidelines, but would be open to a specific argument. Ufwuct (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    However, let us look at the reason for the keep opinion of Staszek Lem. The editor stated that if there are sources then it should be reasonable for the article not to be deleted. However, the editor did not say whether there were sufficient editors to show that the subject has passed
    WP:GNG
    . Does the subject exist; I am not doubting that. But is the subject is notable; it is my opinion that it is not.
    Furthermore, the references that are found, do not primarily focus on the subject, but on the historical Russian America period, which I have suggested the references pointed towards be used to enhance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's an ethnic group in the United States. I have met at least a few myself - though not in any of the apparent Yakut hot-spots listed in the article. The size of the ethnic group is most likely exaggerated, but I think that would warrant a "citation needed" and/or "dubious" tag rather than a wholesale deleted. Would not support merging with Russian Americans, because they are entirely different. If it is decided to merge this information, "Asian American" or "Yakuts" seems a much more appropriate place. Ufwuct (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Until very recently (maybe early 2010), Kazakh Wikipedia had very few articles (maybe 5000 articles). It would really bug me because I knew that there were significant topics that were not covered on the internet or Wikipedia, yet I knew they were important (sorry, I can't think of specific examples, but I think they had to do with specifc practices during Nauryz and historical figures from the 1500s or so). Eventually, maybe some Kazakhs got together and collaborated on writing articles, because there is more information.
    I've also created or worked on stub articles before which were not well sourced but eventually became decent articles. I really don't understand the rush to delete an ethnic group from Wikipedia. It's not advertising, spam, or likely to fade in significance within two years. It's not a POV fork article. And it's not like an article for Negidal-Americans or Vep-Americans. There are likely to be more than just the couple Yakuts I met in San Antonio in the United States since there a half million of them, there is increasing international involvement in mining and oil/gas within Sakha Republic, and the fact that they had at least some presence in North America dating back 200 years.
    This is a stub, not non-notable. Ufwuct (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There need to be some reliable sources that can actually flesh out this article, otherwise it should be removed. As noted above the historical article in Russian really doesn't have much to say directly about Yakuts in America. And while the census bureau has "Yakut" as an ethnic category, in the latest census figures that I've seen no one has chosen it as a form of identification. So the half million figures are unsourced and probably wildly over-inflated. Either some strong sources need to be provided, or the whole thing should be canned.Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can shed some light why, as some people mention here, recent census does not have "Yakuts": whoever minimally familiar with the topic would have known that after the collapse of the last Russian Empire Soviet Union, Yakuts prefer to call themselves
      talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    If this is the case, there does not appear to be significant coverage of
    Cypriot Americans are represented, with a population estimate of 5,560.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Here is a |link to the American Community Survey results on ethnicity/ancestry in 2010 (and just for good measure here are |stats for ancestry of Asians in any combination from 2011). Neither "Yakut" nor "Sakha" makes the list. Claiming that there are 500,000 Yakut Americans is in effect arguing that there are more people identifying as Yakut in the US than there are identifying as Romanians, Iranians, Armenians, or Croatians. I highly suspect that the claims of existence of this ethnic community in the US is OR. The reason I mention the census data is that in order for this to be a legitimate article, it needs to discuss an actual community. Therefore there needs to be some evidence that there are Americans who identify as Yakut/Sakha *as a group*. "Americans who have ancestors from Russia/USSR who may have been Yakuts/Sakha or who may have lived in Yakutia at some point" might be an interesting article, but that's a bit different than what this article claims to be (maybe more of a category, if any noteworthy people can be defined as such). Considering that a Sakha | delegation was just visiting the American Museum of Natural History, one would think that at least a mention would be made by the museum of Yakuts living in America, if there was such a community. Likewise, I would expect actual news | sources from Yakutia/Sakha to mention this diaspora in their summary of Sakha foreign relations since 1991. I'm all for considering the article notable, whatever it's title would be (Yakut or Sakha), if some actual sources can be provided to show that this group actually exists in the US, rather than as a state of conjecture. Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and accept all your arguments. At the same time please understand mine as well. Bear with me for a sec:
    1. I agree that "Sakha Americans" and "Yakut Americans" as a separate ethnic communities are fairly nonnotable (despite having a couple of forums/websites) in terms of reliable 3rd party sources.
    2. At the same time the article contains a piece of interesting historical information about Yakuts ina Americ in 19th century, verifiable from at least 3 reliable sources.
    3. The goal of wikipedia is to serve as an information hub, especially for information not redily available form other wikipedias (and I am not talking about articles kind of "List of towns with obscene names" ..er.. List of the longest English words with one syllable.)
    4. An article with valid verifiable content may have a really lousy title, but to delete on this formal grounds is hardly in spirit of wikipedia. A better approach is to rename the page (my suggestion above), so that the content preserved.
    5. In other words, it is a good idea not to confuse article subject and article title
    6. References at hand, I could have happily waited for the article deleted and after that I could have written Yakuts in America, with nice edit count increase, DYK, good article, etc. But I do want the original author's contribution to wikipedia recognized and this new author educated about wikipedia ways, rather than chooed away.
    In other words, I am a devoted inclusionist, as long as an article in question is not a vehicle of promotion of someone's glory or original thought.
    talk) 00:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So to sum up what I understand is the statement by
    ignore all rules
    because there is historical reasons to keep the subject?
    If this is the case, then may I offer my previous rebutle. Although, there are reliable sources in use in the article, and have also been included here in discussion, those sources primarily deal with Yakuts as being part of the historical period of
    Russian America
    . As such those mentions of Yakuts being part of Russian America, should be used in that article, and used to enhance that article, and does not necessarily mean that the Yakut American ethnicity is notable in and of itself.
    Perhaps a redirect to
    verified content exist from this article (that we are discussing in this AfD) can be merged into the Russian American article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment: There are some complex issues being raised here, and I think another week will help editors to reach consensus. You may want to reach out to other editors to see if anyone else has more relevant information; while you can't canvas, specific editors, I recommend posting notices on relevant Wikiprojects. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both DelSorts for the two wikiprojects that cover this article
    WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, on both those wikiproject's talk pages?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Russian America and Russian Americans).Konchevnik81 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Merge to Yakuts - Google Books search for "Sakha-American" -business reveals that according to the book "Russia's Diamond Colony: The Republic of Sakha", there used to be a Sakha-American Center at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. But that was published in 2000, and I can find no evidence that the center now exists - it may have been folded into their American Russian Center. In any case, what's available would make a useful addition to the Yakuts article, with a redirect from this article, but there's not enough material for a separate article. Altered Walter (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 02:57, 27 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Centro Warwick

    Centro Warwick (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)

    Coverage of this shopping centre is trivial and routine, such as attempted burglaries and abductions. The topic therefore fails

    WP:ORG, and as such we should not have an article on it. Till 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG. coverage is limited to trivial incidents and nothing in depth about the centre. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 02:42, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Wood Productions

    AfDs for this article:
    Josh Wood Productions (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)

    Removed PROD per

    WP:PROD (previous AFD). Reason given in PROD (by an IP) was: This article is incomplete, it lacks citations and any references or reliable sources. This article doe not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Notability of this article cannot be established. The article improvement tag has been since May 2012, the article publisher had enough time to improve it and he/she did not improved it nor added any citations and any references or reliable sources. This article qualifies for speedy deletion and deletion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Illia Connell (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Delete per the deletion policy. No references, article appears to be almost entirely about owner, with barely any mention of company itself - Josh Wood Productions. This article is incomplete, it lacks citations and any references or reliable sources. Luisa (talk) 1:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.

    WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Ktrij Devejian

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

    WP:NN living minor figure in the Armenian church. I have removed several paragraphs of poorly sourced material from this article which attacked the subject. The article's sources mostly only mention the subject in passing as the translator or spokesperson for Karekin II. Pburka (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 02:39, 27 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

    ey 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    DJ Prostyle

    DJ Prostyle (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)

    BLP, no 3rd party sources. Notability very questionable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Put back as redirect - The "Latin Mixx Award" gave me pause, but the award itself doesn't appear notable. The page was created as a redirect, so I'd rather truncate it back into a redirect than delete it entirely.
      Wha? 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Redirect per Sven Manguard. I was going to go for delete, as this was the only significant coverage I could find (though there are a lot of brief mentions out there), but given a target to redirect to, let's do that. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect. Certainly does not warrant a stand-alone article. Even redirect is thin. I tagged this for notability some time ago. Thanks to Andy for the follow-up.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 29 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. Courcelles 00:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashok Sundari

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

    No reliable sources exist for this article. So delete per

    WP:GNG Forgot to put name (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete It seems, per the only book source that has a direct hit on the term, that this is a character from a play by Shambhu Prasad Dhungel. I would opt for a redirect here but since we don't have an article for this person, meh. As it stands now, the way the article is presented can be considered a
      hoax. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 02:37, 27 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. —Darkwind (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    North American Allied Fight Series

    North American Allied Fight Series (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)

    Doesnt seem to be a notable enough organization to have a wikipedia article. It's a local fight promotion, of which there are tons of. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: if this article is deleted then the redirect
      WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Local promotions don't get licensed to put on shows all over the eastern US. They are licensed all the way from Michigan all the way down to South Carolina. The argument that they are a local fight promotion fails miserably from the start. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth I would like to point out that NAAFS belts are contested at Bellator events. I never dug into the connection but every so often i'll be watching a sherdog pbp and it will talk about the fight being a NAAFS fight. Here is some Evidence to support some cross-over between submission wrestling and NAAFS, as well as to support their having notable UFC fighters such as Stipe Miocic and Jeff Monson have fought for them. http://naafs.biz/site/2012/03/16/a-pair-of-naafs-titles-on-the-line-at-bellator-66/ http://www.ludusfightclub.com/2012/03/12/naafs-is-promoting-2-title-fights-for-bellator-66-undercard/ .

    Keep.

    talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I really could care less what some stranger on a forum thinks about me. I dont feel wikipedia needs a bunch of articles for unnotable fighters. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important Note This organization was on the project list as an organization that needed to be done. Everybody though it was important enough to do an article on, but after 1 is done, you have somebody trying to argue that it isn't notable enough. Where was that debate before the article was written. If you have an issue with the notability or a project requested article, then you need to do that sooner, and not doing so should constitute you agreeing that the person/organization is notable and you should forever hold your peace.I've taken the time to do some research to work on articles requested by the project community, and if you guys let them be deleted, then I won't be taking the time to help do anymore of them. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a regional organization that appears to fail
      WP:GNG. GHits appear to be limited to the usual event and fight card announcements on MMA oriented sites and local newspapers. No significant coverage outside of that. --TreyGeek(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Just curious if you have a source (even primary would be cool) that supports your last sentence? That sounds like a nice tidbid to support the keep.
    talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I would have to go look and see what I could come up with. It isn't something that is really talked about, and the reason I knew that was that SC had some real safety issues with the ISKA doing its sanctioning. The NAAFS had a couple of its reps come in, and help fix the sanctioning. They were actually seriously looking at using the NAAFS to do the sanctioning in SC, but ultimately deciced to consult with them and use them to help fix everything and do the sanctioning themselves. Not to be funny, but very few people really understand all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on unless you are a part of it. That's why none of the sanctioning information was placed into the article, because what I know came from inside sources, and nothing public that I could provide. If I can find it somewhere referenceable, then I will add it to the article. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge & Redirect: Based on the reading of the article and how it appears to dangle as a hanger on on the Bellator promotion (including it's title belts being fought for at Bellator events) , I think it would be appropriate to merge and redirect this article to Bellator. No objection to an appropriate spinout in the future when this sub-promotion gains significant notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification This is NOT a sub-promotion of Bellator. The NAAFS has been putting on shows years before Belltor ever started. They have put on over 150 shows since 2007. What promotion in the world has put on over 150 shows in 6 years. The UFC doesn't even do that. These guys are a huge part of MMA, which is why Bellator sought them out to co-promote events. This is one of the biggest MMA promotions in the world. We should be discussing adding them to the top tier list, not whether or not they are relevant to have an article.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No... you missed the point. Read the text again. I said appears meaning that since this promotion's belts are fought over at Bellator, it makes sense to align them there. "These guys are a huge part of MMA" Really? Prove it. Show that they have more clout than the entries on the first tier of MMA organizations at
      WP:MMATIER. Just because they've ran a significant amount of events. I'm looking through the fighters as notable veterans, and just from my spot check (meaning random sampling) I'm not even seeing mentions (or at minimum a few entries there) of this league in their records. I still assert that this would probably be better served by a section at Bellator. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    You say you are a licensed referee, judge and fighter. I think you have a
    conflict of interest. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You're digging, and digging really deep. Being a ref and a judge is about being able to be neutral. I have to be neutral even when working events for guys that I have trained, trained with, been acquanted with for years. That's a good point, except that it shows I have the LEAST
    conflict of interest. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    llama: The other side of the coin is that he could be considered an expert. I also received the same accusation on another afd. Just because individuals such as myself and Dawg have first-hand knowledge of the sport does not necessarily represent a coi. I have seen no statement from Dawg saying that he is on the NAAFS payroll or is married to the owner of the organization. I think "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."
    talk) 23:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks for a dose of reality. Just for the record. I have never been employed by the NAAFS. I don't have any family members employed by the NAAFS. I have never even been to one of their live shows. Like he is trying to point out to you, what I do within the sport just gives me a better understanding of how things work. I'm there at the shows when things are being setup, when the doctors are doing fighter physicals. I'm part of the pre-fight meetings, the verification and approvals by the athletic commission reps. It gives me an inside track on how the system works, but in no way does it make me biased. I'm not really sure how it could. If if makes you feel better, I won't write any articles or get involved in any articles dealing with the state athletic commissions that hire me to work the shows.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is you've made the admission that you're a ref for a MMA organization, therefore you have a vested interest in having MMA articles included in Wikipedia. Therefore you have a Conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are countless amounts of referees. I would argue that it is incidental that Dawg is a ref. And he has brought up angles to argue that I haven't seen others present. Why would you want to stifle valid points just because of a technicality you assert he has triggered. Read back a couple posts where I posted a quote from the COI article talking about using common sense. There is no identifiable connection with Dawg and NAAFS so at thins point you are on a
    talk) 05:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Since you appear to either be willfully ignorant or lacking in common sense I shall draw the map for you. If MMA articles have a significant representation on MMA, then more people know about them, then people go to MMA events, which encourages promotions to have more events, which means that fights need to be refereed, which means that Willdawg111 has the potential for more work. It's 5 levels of linkage, but enough to make me strongly think that Willdawg should not be making the primary defense for this article. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a bonafide conspiracy theory you have going on. You want so badly for what you are saying to be true. What you are saying is that Dawg is editing articles on here simply to fuel events so that he might have more work? I'm not even going to address that directly except for
    talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This isn't a small organization. This is a huge organizations. Nobody has put on more shows than they have in the last 6 years, including the UFC. This isn't some local show who puts on an occasional show. This organization is the real deal, the major leagues, and should be listed as a top tier organization.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of organizations that put on a lot of shows, not all of them are really important. What have they done other than put on a lot of shows, put some filler in Bellator, and been a starting point for the occasional notable fighter? The idea that this organization should be considered as big as the UFC, or any other top MMA organization, because they put on a lot of shows seems hyperbolic at best. Who are their current champions, what's been their biggest event? Do they get extensive, consistent media coverage? At this point it appears to be of about the exact same profile as Rage in the Cage, a persistent feeder league that provides a stable, bare bones base for pro-mma while having no obvious presence in the sport. These kind of organizations dot the globe, there's Finn Fight, ProFC, ZST, Rage in the Cage, Cage Force, etc. All of these organizations are important for building new talent, but if any of them went away it would go almost entirely unnoticed even by dedicated MMA media and fans. At that point it's hard to see why it needs an article here.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the organization didn't need an article then why was it on the list of organizations that needed articles created by the project. The consensus of people wanted the article done, and now a few people who didn't speak up when it was put on the list of articles that needed to be done, no longer want it?Willdawg111 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically it would appear that anyone can add any promotion to that list, it's just a list of promotions people think ought to get made. It appears to include some potential consensus ability, but I see no signs that that is pursued with any vigor. Beyond that your above argument against deletion is circular, if a few people can agree that an article should get made, then why can't a few people agree that it isn't good enough to keep as well? It's the same basic process both ways.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Criteria supporting notability

    1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage. - this a bit more detailed than what I have time to do now - Unknown

    2. Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable. - in 2012 had 16 events and in 2011 had 21 events (by comparison Strikeforce did 7 events in 2012 and 16 in 2011). - Met

    3. Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable - been around since 2005 and in MMA terms 7 years is a long time - Met.

    4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters. - There seem to be a lot of UFC and Bellator vets, but I am not comfortable with what standard is 'well-known' and 'large number' - Unknown/Lean towards Met

    Criteria supporting deletion

    1. Has only promoted a single event. - has promoted many events - Not Met

    2. Short history as an organization. - in view of notability criteria 2 and 3 - Not Met

    3. Few notable fighters fight in their events. - lists at least 10 notable fighters, which is more than a few - Not Met

    4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts - all fights appear to be sanctioned by state commission that follows unified rules (e.g., http://aco.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6aNFV8Uaiq4%3d&tabid=71) - Not Met

    5. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies. - See criteria 4 for deletion - Not Met

    Seems clear to me that there is relatively strong support to keep and very little reason to delete. Therefore, this appears to be a keep. -RonSigPi (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I knew for sure they are definitely a notable organization but wasn't sure what guidelines I needed to prove it to those people not involved in MMA. This was very well laid out where anybody regardless of having any knowledge of MMA or not should be able to understand. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No's 1&4 are certainly not met for criteria to keep. It is very very rarely the subject of any media coverage even within MMA journalism. And has promoted a few fighters, many of whom were not well known or highly ranked at the time of their competition there, and those fighters are a severe minority for the number of shows and fighters this promotion has hosted. which would put it in criteria 3 for deletion. I think it's on the very low end of what might be keep-able (essentially I think it should probably be deleted), but your score tallying seems way off base. The only arguments that can reasonably be made for NAAFS is that they are putting on a large number of shows per year and have been around since 2005. This stub still contains no information that couldn't be gotten off the business website or off sherdog, and two of the links are to MMA stat archives (Sherdog/Tapology) and another is to the business website itself, and none (except for those pertaining to the notable fighters) actually match up as references to any of the written text in the article. Right now the only thing notable about NAAFS is that it exists.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your assertion that NAAFS does receive some coverage would lead me to believe it passes
    talk) 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment That does not make them the subject of multiple independent articles. As I said coverage of the NAAFS is incredibly rare. The number of actual articles that are about the NAAFS as the principal subject (i.e. not about a fighter who happens to be appearing on one of their shows) could probably be counted on one hand. And that's across the entire 7 year history of their organization. To spin that as multiple independent articles from national and international media is gross misrepresentation.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Meets criteria supporting notability listed at
      Wikipedia:MMATIER#Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Comment . I only need 2 fingers to count the articles it needs to be found in (and it doesn't have to be in the article title. The article just has to have more than a trivial mention of the subject) to meet
    talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment I'm not seeing the part of GNG that says as long as a subject is mentioned more than once in its entire history of existence it is grandfathered into wikipedia and may never be challenged as worthy of coverage. I think this subject barely passes the loosest possibly interpretation of GNG, that is my argument against it. That it is the least possibly notable thing which could be argued to have a place on wikipedia. If this AfD acts as a method to greatly improve the quality of this stub, then great, but I don't think that enough information exists to develop this article beyond what it already is, which is almost entirely devoid of meaningful information.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- to quote the GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". It passes. Also keep in mind that Notability is not temporary. also please see
    talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty845 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting Comment It would be helpful if some additional discussion could occur focused on whether the subject meets
      WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines that have already been adopted by the community at large. Monty845 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Comment I believe it does pass the
    WP:GNG by having multiple quality refs that span 2009-2012 , here, here, and here, here, and here
    talk) 08:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment If you read any article about the NAAFS is uggest you read http://www.mmaweekly.com/naafs-admits-shock-over-revelation-of-brandon-salings-past. It's about how they let a registered sex offender with Nazi tattoos on him compete several times.
    talk) 08:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Does that make them more or less notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I say more. That article + 1 more(which it has in spades) is enough for it to pass
    talk) 09:13, 27 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. The article was speedy deleted per

    csd a7 by User:Jimfbleak. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 12:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Knightwatchers

    Knightwatchers (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)

    Self published book series by non notable author. Fails

    WP:NBOOK. Safiel (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete per nom. JayJayTalk to me 02:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. I did a search and ultimately this is a non-notable self-published series. A search brought up nothing that would show that this series has gained the notability that some of the other self-published series such as Wool have garnered from reliable sources.
      (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 27 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. Not a

    snowball's chance... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Franz Josef Caballes

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

    The subject is non-notable and fails

    t • c) 01:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 28 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance

    Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance (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)

    Request for AfD at OTRS by User:Arodb - Rationale - This is illustrative of the inherent difficulties of a very specialized procedure, use of legal precedent to describe an argument. At the least it requires an understanding of the hierarchy of courts, U.S. Supreme Court, over Federal appeals, over District. This is parallel to the similar State courts that even have different terminology IE, in New York State, the lowest court is called Supreme Court. So, this is complicated, even for the average lawyer.

    And the appropriateness of citing a given precedent to advance an argument is far from self evident, as shown by split decisions by Jurists who are all steeped in professional skills and specific knowledge of the subject being contested. I happen to oppose the ritual of the Pledge, and am preparing a long argument advancing this thesis which led me to the article in question. Ironically, the case against Wikipedia trying to create this article as a group process is not unlike the words of Justice Robert Jackson on pp 333 of McCollum v. Board of Education - 333 U.S. 203 (1948):

    It is idle to pretend that this task is one for which we can find in the Constitution one word to help us as judges to decide where the secular ends and the sectarian begins in education. Nor can we find guidance in any other legal source. It is a matter on which we can find no law but our own prepossessions. If, with no surer legal guidance, we are to take up and decide every variation of this controversy, raised by persons not subject to penalty or tax but who are dissatisfied with the way schools are dealing with the problem, we are likely to have much business of the sort. And, more importantly, we are likely to make the legal "wall of separation between church and state" as winding as the famous serpentine wall designed by Mr. Jefferson for the University he founded. Added for Arodb(talk) 01:13, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New Jersey Nightmare

    New Jersey Nightmare (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)

    Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY New Jersey Nightmare is a team in the

    WP:NHOCKEY. It is not a professional team. The external link provided for the New Jersey Nightmare is a dead link. Blue Riband► 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 27 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 & redirect. KTC (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Amped Across America

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

    Non-notable forthcoming musical release. No independent coverage. No professional reviews. Only ref is to a pre-order site. PROD removed by creator.

    Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    • Possible redirect to BoDeans#Live_albums.2Fcompilations for now - December is nearly finished and the album is slated for a "Summer/Fall 2012" release which doesn't provide much time. I found a blog here linking the pre-order website but aside from that, everything else is primary and Google News provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per above. This does not appear to meet
      WP:NALBUMS, but it's a plausible search term as a release by a notable band.  Gong show 22:19, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Coffey

    AfDs for this article:
    Chip Coffey (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)

    Notoriety - I've edited this page several times, there was discussion that we were going to merge this page with Psychic Kids which is also a stub. That never happened. I've waited some time before bringing this deletion notice forward because I wanted to see if anyone was able to come up with noteworthy citations. I've had Coffey on Google Alert notice for months and have seen nothing but tour dates and fan pages come through. This stub currently has only his website and imdb links. I do not think it should be merged with P.K. and am nominating that page next. If they were merged we would have only two paragraphs of content, all of which link to their websites. Very little activity on this page other than vandalism control and bot edits Sgerbic (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
      t • c »  01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    That's not how policy works, the amount of content for a subject that meets
    Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns still stand. We now have a very small improvement in the history area. It is just quotes from interviews about his "powers". That might help the article if there were more article to help. Sgerbic (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Coverage exists to establish notability as noted above. That the article is in poor shape means that it needs improvement, not deletion. This is afterall, a collaborative editing environment where
      imperfect articles are expected. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. There were two suggestions that something could be merged, but nobody specified what should be merged, and that leaves those votes too vague. The consensus is that the article is an essay, and essays are generally not particularily merge-able. Note that there is already an "advantages" section in the Signing Exact English article, and the title here is a inplausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Benefits of Using Signed Exact English in the Classroom

    Benefits of Using Signed Exact English in the Classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is an essay and doesn't seem to contain anything but the types of pro-con lists we like to avoid. Maybe some of the contained sources could be useful. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, personal, advocative essay. JIP | Talk 07:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect - surely this could be added as a subsection of
      talk) 07:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an original essay. If parts of it can be merged to
      Signed Exact English, fine. Otherwise, it should be deleted as original research and advocacy for one point of view in controversial SEE/ASL education debates. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 27 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 merge to Optical disc drive.  Sandstein  12:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Compact Disc shattering

    AfDs for this article:
    Compact Disc shattering (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)

    Officially submitting AFD for Towardsabetterwiki, who submitted one a month ago that wasn't properly formatted. Here are the contents of the original nomination:

    Nothing notable here. Mythbusters fan boys can go elsewhere on the web. This article does not belong in an online encyclopedia.

    No citations for "compact disk shattering" as something that actually ever happened. All we have is a link to a TV show where they caused a CD to shatter using conditions that never have been shown to occur in an actual Compact Disk drive. Fan boy articles for "Mythbusters" do not belong on wikipedia.

    (

    @243  ·  04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete. Merge and redirect to Optical disc drive#Rotational mechanism or a new sub-subsection thereof. Yes, CDs can shatter[24]. Hard drives can fail, trees can fall, and hailstones can damage cars. These and a billion and one other trivialities don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not even notable enough for a passing mention in the CD article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Towardsabetterwiki is apparently not a fan of Mythbusters, but this article isn't about Mythbusters, it's about the CD shattering phenomenon. Reliable secondary sources discussing this in depth are a New York Times article and the PCWorld article mentioned by Clarityfiend. An education company posted a warning about CD shattering and prophylactic measures. Given the video evidence, the Mythbusters source is a reliable demonstration that such a thing is possible. Because they were testing an urban myth, they could perhaps be counted as a secondary source. Even if one discounts the Mythbusters experiment, however, there seem multiple independent secondary references to support notability for this topic; the article should be kept. Note this phenomenon is mentioned in the Optical disc drive article as being a real concern, to the point that some manufacturers have altered their rotational speed strategies. It is also mentioned in CD-ROM article. Mark viking (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By your definition, slates falling off the roof of buildings also deserves an article... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I try not to judge how deserving a topic is of an article based on my personal biases. The general notability guides (see
    WP:GNG) and its specializations were created to help editors determine whether a topic is worthy of inclusion independent of personal biases. It's not perfect, but it is the best we have. My keep recommendation was based on finding multiple reliable secondary sources with a quick Google and Wikipedia search. Mark viking (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally not judging it based from personal bias. We do not have an article for every single type of failure there is, nor should we. There is no article on car brake failure, for example, and nor should there be. The issue of CDs shattering is nowhere near important enough to warrant an article, regardless of if it meets GNG or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about merging to somewhere in Optical disc drive? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge The information seems to be notable, having been reported in reliable sources. I'm not sure if it should have its own article or just a section in another article. BigJim707 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And why isn't there an article on car brake failure? BigJim707 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge It definitely has some coverage in reliable sources. But there's no reason why it can't be included in the main article Optical disc drive. We don't have a separate article about every danger of a product or every product recall. The title isn't very descriptive, either, since the article only refers to disks breaking at speed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 28 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. (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 00:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Seven stages (Yogi)

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

    This an unreferrenced orphan article on a subject that does not seem not seem to satisfy WP:GNG BO | Talk 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sources that I cited in the article discuss this subject "directly in detail", to quote the
      Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The citation of the second source is incomplete as it lacks the volume. Having tracked it down and examined it in depth, I noticed that it is aluding to something other then which is the subject of the article - it is discussing the seven stages of Prajna and these are discussed in the context of the philosophy of the ... mythical sage vashista, not Vyasa - which are the subject of this article.
    Also the first is a primary source - and is unsuitable to establish WP:N. (i.e. you cannot bring three translation of a single religious tract and claim that these are a demonstrate that verse so and so is therefore notable - this is the reason the source must be Independent of the subject. c.f.
    general notability guideline
    .
    "Yoga and the Luminous also includes a word-by-word translation of Patañjali's Yoga Sutra, the foundational text of Yoga philosophy and ...." from the back cover.
    I think these sources only demonstrate that this is not WP:N concept being a subject which can means different things to different writers under various contexts. BO | Talk 15:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snow Keep per patent lack of
      WP:BEFORE. A rapid search in Google Books with the key words "Seven stages" and "Yogi" shows 987 results, and in the main part they are not trivial mentions. Also included in encyclopedias such as Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies: Indian Metaphysica and Epistemology the Tradition of Nyaya-Vaisesika Up to Gangesa by Karl H. Potter. A withdrawal of the nomination is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    An examination of both Google Scholar, Books and Google itself for "Seven Stages Yogi" as well as a numbered of variants revealed no independent reliable sources for this non-Notable concept in Yoga. If such can be found I'll gladly improve it and upgrade it's position in the Yoga project. But if notability cannot be demonstrated it should be removed. The far broader search mentioned above however returned many unrelated results referring to a number of similar sounding concepts but this has no merit since it is to be statistically expected of any search which is too broad - in particular looking up Yogi in a eastern philosophy book is not particularly earthshaking. Accordingly I maintain that the burden of establishing WP:N has not been carried out. If you believe you have uncovered hundreds of high quality texts please provide citations. BO | Talk 13:26, 28 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. Courcelles 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Chase Norlin

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

    This individual doesn't appear to be

    notable. The article itself has a spotty history and it speaks volumes (to me, at least) that none of the mentioned companies have articles of their own here. I recommend deletion. MZMcBride (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:55, 27 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. Courcelles 00:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristall (singer)

    Kristall (singer) (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)

    Deleted by PROD in August 2011 and by BLPPROD in November 2012. There is no evidence of notability; I also suggest SALTing to prevent re-creation. GiantSnowman 15:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - or at most, redirect to
      WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and salt - Not notable by any of the usual yardsticks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 29 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.  Sandstein  20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aldo Grippaldi

    Aldo Grippaldi (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)

    Biography of someone lacking notability according to guidelines, made by a single-purpose user, using copyrighted material from this non-notable person's website Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Google news has no hits and while a Google search for the name turned up some hits none of the ones I looked at appeared to be significant coverage in reliable sources. The author of the article claims that the bibliographical information contained in the References section goes to articles in magazines but I was unable to verify that that content actually exists or states what the editor claims it does since I was unable to find the half of it I searched for online. It certainly seems possible that the subject is notable but need to see something that the rest of us can verify. The subject of the article founded a company called Gravitis which has been spamming Wikipedia for years now (see USER:Unotretre for an example of an account that used multiple sockpuppets and was blocked for making legal threats both on Wikipedia and in emails to various editors). This history makes me skeptical. SQGibbon (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete: I was given all magazines I indicated, 'cept the last, online, but it's curious a wikiEditor asks to make a scan of printed magazine (I WILL NEVER TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFRINGE COPIRIGHT TO SHARE IN THIS SKEPTIC PLACE), why? I gave exact number of Issues, eaxct name of articles, and renowned national magazines The Scarp well knows and YOU all have seen in Broox path link with all miniatures. SQGibbon was wrong, because Gravitis is a brand, not a Company. And if you want more referenced links, you know well you have to see the Google Italian engine, which shows Story pages, and images. SQGibbon is not reliable in this discussion to me, trying to add intentionally mud to the discussion, which is not the case.--Wrwrw (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, italian google shows basically the same nothing as english one (facebook, twitter, no relevant article, etc)--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I created this page, so my opinion on this should be obvious, but just wanted to add my explicit "vote" on the matter.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admins know the nominators support of deletion is obvious, the only reason for a nominator to ever need to make a bolded !vote is if they have changed their minds. Courcelles 00:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI concluded - have struck comments from now-blocked sock-puppets of User:Unotretre. Stalwart111 14:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per SQGibbon and nominator. Sarah 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - There are ongoing legal threats, please delete asap. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - having noted the sock-puppetry above and given the ongoing trouble, it seems obvious to me that this article is
      WP:RS) to verify notability or the claimed plethora of sources. The one that does have a link includes one mention of the subject - hardly "significant coverage". Stalwart111 10:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Keep on Roby Monroe and Steve Reese. —Darkwind (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Bird (footballer)

    Simon Bird (footballer) (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)

    Article about a footballer hasn't played in a fully pro league and also fails

    WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Roby Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Steve Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Professional Arena soccer league not count? Footballgy (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. See
    WP:FPL. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    New Starship

    New Starship (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

    on behalf of an anonymous editor who posted their rationale on the article's talk page. I have included it verbatim below. On the merits... I dunno. Sources are lacking, and there's not a whole lot of obvious notability, but there has been a smattering of press coverage. It might be a case of "Not Yet" as opposed to "Not Ever". No recommendation from me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    This is advertising and also New Starship is not a notable figure or organization. Nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.235.68 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 23:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - Notable enough. There's some press coverage already, and due to the subject matter it will probably be a household name and tourist destination for certain people. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete too soon. There is some press coverage but it's not significant. Delete without prejudice for recreation should the "museum" actually become a reality. RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete too soon, not notable today, we can't predict if it will become notable in the future 74.198.9.218 (talk) 17:48, 29 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 Apotropaic magic. Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger One ping only 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Demons in Apotropaic Prayers and Incantations

    Demons in Apotropaic Prayers and Incantations (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 came across this while looking into the PROD categories and seeing another page by the same user that is up for PROD. While I think that this is a page for a student user, this is pretty much a personal

    talk) 07:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • It's not an easy delete, is it? There is some merit here, but I'm not sure in what context it could be saved. The big issue is trying to figure out what is OR/essay and what is specifically sourced by the references.
      talk) 18:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The article topic could be notable, but in its current state, it's a hotbed of original research that does not quite meet notability. We're not an academic journal, we're not a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 27 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. A9, no indication of musician notability either Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Living The Dream (album)

    Living The Dream (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)

    A non-notable album I cannot find reliable sources for.

    talk) 00:19, 27 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. Courcelles 00:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mischaela Le' Anne Elkins

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

    Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail

    WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:14, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    International Center for Studies in Creativity

    International Center for Studies in Creativity (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)

    Article on non-notable program within a single non-notable department in a university. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
    t • c) 04:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:12, 27 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. Courcelles 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Bailey

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

    Non-notable per

    WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:11, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan McGillivray

    Ryan McGillivray (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)

    Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, be reasonable. Nobody tries to delete notable fighters. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Care to comment why? Just saying "not notable" isn't a proper rationale. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it fails
    WP:NMMA (and a few others) in a big way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Except it doesn't those policies, as I've explained above. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:18, 29 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. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. Any potential mergers can be discussed outside of AFD. KTC (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nordic skiing at the 1924 Winter Olympics

    Nordic skiing at the 1924 Winter Olympics (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)

    Totally redundant considering everything listed on this page already has an article and this article has no information which couldn't be found on those articles. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all to Nordic skiing at the Olympics or Nordic skiing at the Winter Olympics -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep until things are sorted out properly. For articles up to 1964 these articles used to hold the results (example) until these were removed diff. More recent pages were created deliberately in this reduced form (example). I wonder whether this has been appropriate but AfD is too blunt a weapon to decide what is best. Merge is unlikely to be an option because the links in each article are to the corresponding year-specific articles of Olympic discipline results and these are in better shape (example). The articles under discussion are rather akin to
      WP:SETINDEX articles. Thincat (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:03, 27 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 merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    List of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Songs

    List of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Songs (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. While the show and some individual episodes are notable, and the composer is notable, no songs are. If there was an official soundtrack I could see morphing this to work for that, but there's been no announcements. MASEM (t) 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge* Although I (personally) wouldn't mind seeing this as a separate article, the best place for this list right now would probably be as part of the List of Episodes. Yellow1996 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted
    to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,
    ey 00:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Merge per Yellow. I've looked around and can't find a list like this for any other series, and even songs like "See My Vest" by Mr Burns are just redirects to their respective episodes, so this won't be a particularly helpful list for navigation in the future. Yep. PhnomPencil (✉) 07:31, 27 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. A10 / G12  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR

    SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This appears to be a cut-and-paste version of sections of the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and various other sources with no attribution given. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • Speedy delete per the
      Je vous invite à me parler) 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • It seems a rather implausible search term, especially in all-caps. Incidentally, if consensus is to redirect, it would probably be simplest to delete the page, and then recreate it as a redirect, to avoid any nasty
      Je vous invite à me parler) 00:22, 27 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 keep. Invalid rationale for deletion, can't be considered good-faith. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    2012 phenomenon

    2012 phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is now over with. The world did not end. Now it is time to delete. RightGot (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So you propose to delete 2011 as well as it is over? If this is a joke, I don't think it is funny. If not, I don't get it. --134.3.213.74 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious Keep - whether the event happened or not, the amount of attention it received means it plainly passes our notability guidelines. We have plenty of other articles on prophecies that failed to come true but were nonetheless historically significant (Great Disappointment, 2011 end times prediction to name a couple), and this one is no different. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 27 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_27&oldid=1142635586"