Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Durinck

Christina Durinck (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)

There is also a Danish article which I just proposed for deletion. The many redirs listed on Talk:Christina Durinck, and the fact that the Danish article links to a Linkedin profile make it possible it was made for career purposes. Vice presidents of minor trade unions are hardly notable without additional media coverage or similar. --Sasper (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP: GNG. Article is unsourced and there is are no reliable sources online about the subject. Electric Catfish 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She does not seem to pass
  WP:ACADEMIC at this time. For sure all of the 25 (!) redirects should be deleted. We don't need pages for every possible variant of her name and title. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 28 July 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.

Brian Rockwell Williams

Brian Rockwell Williams (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)

Suspected perpetrator of a double murder with possible mental health issues. In any case

• Delete - I agree with the nominator. Until proven guilty, this subject is really no more notable than any other murder suspect.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree. This was a very notable murder, as the victims included a prominent San Diego detective, as well as a top student athlete. It's even more notable now, as another former student of Westview High School,
  Jared Loughner, was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. I don't see what the difference is here. This entry is not made to look like news at all. It merely provides information on a notable incident. Please cite the provide the exact text of the policy in which you cite as the basis for this incident not being notable, and please provide an explanation detailing the way in which you believe this entry is made to look like news. Systematic1 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - If the murder is indeed notable, the article should perhaps be about it, rather than a suspect who may or may not have been involved.  -- WikHead (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, both are notable. The suspect for his relation to a high school that produced another well known murderer. The murder itself is notable because one of the victims was very notable (the mother was a prominent San Diego Police Detective).Systematic1 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The individual fails
  Location (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Are you just citing policies without even reading them?

• Instead of acting like delete happy robots and quoting irrelevant policies without actually making an attempt to point to something in the entry that policy violates, try to actually cite specific things in the entry that should be changed. I will make the appropriate changes myself.Systematic1 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm gonna go with keep in this instance. My first gut feelings were to delete, but after reading the article and seeing the sources, its clear that
  WP:PERP now applies, although it may not have a week ago. The shooting in Colorado has made the relevance of this event more notable and news coverage has increased because of the school connection.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm not sure how one can deny that the section "Double Murder" reads exactly like an AP wire story. But I really want to fight against the notion that this man is notable because he went to the same high school as another notable crazy person. While I'm sure News of the World would lead with a bold "Is this high school breeding murderers?" most sane observers would agree that this is a coincidence of so little significance that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in either the
  James Eagan Holmes article or the one on Rockwell. If someone is born on the same day as Charles Manson, should we mention it in an article? Of course not. Articles convey meaningful facts not trivia. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - What then would you propose as an acceptable title? Because in my opinion, an AP wire story would be much more sensationalized ex. "Man Slits Throats of Own Mother/Sister" The title simply describes the major noteworthy event for which this individual is primarily associated with, and it actually does it in a comparatively tasteful manor. Your Manson analogy is fallacious on two levels. First just because an individual was born on the same day as Manson does not indicate that they share any common traits or characteristics. However, in this case both individuals not only attended the same school, but they also are both alleged to be prolific murderers, and both will likely raise some type of insanity defense. Second, being born on the same day is nowhere near the equivalent of graduating from the same high school, which is restricted in scope geographically and intrinsically. Even then, as I wrote above, Brian Williams is notable for even more than just attending the same school as James Holmes, the circumstances surrounding his alleged crimes make him notable as well. So I would ask that anyone who continues to chime in here not just repeat this same overdone argument of the link between the schools being weak, but to comment on this entry as a whole.Systematic1 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you're hiring someone and he tells you he attended Westview High School, will that give you pause? If your daughter says 'Dad I'm dating this guy from Westview High School', will you buy her a gun? No, of course not. This coincidence is just one of these fluky events that is bound to be noticed in a world where everything is a Google search away. You're assigning meaning and importance to superficial chance. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This isn't a forum. Your arguments are irrelevant to the issue under discussion. We are here to talk about the inclusion of this individual on Wikipedia, not to answer unrelated hypotheticals. Alas, you continue to miss the point. I am not assigning meaning and importance, after all, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to assign significance, but to present source accompanied facts. That is what I am doing. I simply recognize, coincidence or not, that it is noteworthy that two prolific alleged murders have emerged from the same high school. Individuals will be free to infer their own meaning and significance as they please. However, as I've stated continuously, there is more about the circumstances surrounding Brian Rockwell Williams' alleged crimes that make him noteworthy. Not one person has commented on the fact that his mother (victim) was a prominent San Diego detective.Systematic1 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article was added purely to breed Westview High School's reputation for producing murderers. It does not satisfy
  WP:N. — PCB 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Although Westview may indeed be developing that reputation, this entry was only created for the purpose of shedding light on a notable incident. Although it may be hard to swallow, please recognize that
  WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, and give this entry a chance to develop properly; after all, it was flagged for deletion just minutes after its creation. I would further suggest that many weighing in here are more concerned with protecting the prestige and status of Westview High School than they are with presenting this information according to Wikipedia policy. Finally, I have added several additional legitimate sources to the original article including Fox, CBS, etc. Systematic1 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No real opinion on whether the article should be kept, although I do tend to think articles on murders are deleted too readily on Wikipedia. However, I will make two points. First, I fail to see why this individual should be notable because he went to the same school as another murder suspect. So what? We do not do notability by association (very tenous association in this case, since they weren't related and there doesn't appear to be any evidence they were even friends) on Wikipedia. Second, one of his victims may have been well-known within the SDPD, but she was not famous or notable outside it. She appears to have been a typical hard-working, low-ranking, veteran police officer just like many thousands of others worldwide. Admirable, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has only local coverage, wasn't considered notable enough for an article until it was discovered he attended the same high school as Holmes, not even convicted of the crime, does not appear to meet
  WP:BLPCRIME. 72Dino (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I am sure some other Westview graduates have committed crimes too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see this as notable. I searched Google news for double murder and this one is no different then thousands of others.
  Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Sorry, your Google search method fails
  WP:HITS, and thus provides no rational basis for inclusion or deletion. Systematic1 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Trial is still forthcoming, impossible to make an accurate assessment of notability until that point in time. 69.199.125.193 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL guideline, that makes no difference.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL, but in his defense there is a

WP:LOCALINT defines an entry as a local interest only if 100% of its sources are "local" sources. There are sources cited in this entry that are national in scope (ex. Huffington Post). Thus, according to wikipedia, it is not categorized as a local interest. Regardless, San Diego is a city of over 1 million people. So even significant "local coverage" is notable. There has also been much added to this article since it was AfD, and I suggest everyone review the additions.Systematic1 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't need to respond to every comment you know. I'm a strong inclusionist, if i thought it should be kept, I would make sure it was.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:32, 28 July 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.

Lamborghini boyz

Lamborghini boyz (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 stub. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:GNG
• Delete, only claim to notability seems to be a YouTube video. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 23:27, 24 July 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) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milo's Astro Lanes

Milo's Astro Lanes (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. Prod nomination based on failure to adhere to

• Comment I was the prod remover, FWIW. The reviews in question are IGN and GameSpot. I don't see how these are primary sources, being external to the game's publishers and reviewing the game in a once removed fashion described by
  WP:SECONDARY. Could you be more specific as to how these are primary as opposed to secondary sources please Indrian. Someoneanother 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confused as to the difference between an objective source and a primary source. A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred. This includes not just journals, diaries, interviews, business documents, etc., but also newspaper articles and other sources that report on an event or experience as it happens. See this page for some common definitions http://www.library.unt.edu/digitalprojects/metadata/elements/primary-sources-definition. A game review published at the time of a game's release is an account of the nature of a game at the time it first appeared, making it a primary source. It is not one-step removed from the event as you say, because the event is the release of the game and the review appears within a short time of that release and is directly tied to the author's experience of that event. Even later reviews would most likely still be primary sources since they are the result of a direct interaction with the game just as a WWII veteran's memoir is drawn from direct experiences in the war. Secondary sources are works of synthesis based on such sources that interpret these experiences. In this case, a secondary source would be a research article that attempts to quantify the good and bad points of this game by researching reviews of the game and synthesizing points from several of them to create a complete picture. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred. No. Not hardly. And I put that in bold because it is absolutely necessary to emphasise just how completely wrong that assessment of a primary source is. Please see

WP:PRIMARY. A primary source is a source that is connected with the subject of the article. I.E. Nintendo for a Super Mario Bros. game, General Motors for the Chevrolet Camaro, Taco Bell on Chalupas, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how far "removed in time from the event" the source is. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy close/keep. Nomination based on a misunderstanding of
  WP:PRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what a primary source is and your frequent use of bold only highlights your ignorance. I provided a few definitions at the link above from reputable publications which you obviously did not bother to read. Here are a few more though, if you actually want to learn a thing or two http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/primaryterm.htm. Primary sources are contemporary in time. That is their fundamental state of being. This is known by scholars and researchers all over the world, so you unfortunately betray yourself as a layman unsuited to this particular debate. Incidentally, WP:PRIMARY states the same thing as all these other sources and does not agree with you at all. And I quote: "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Notice the word often, so no, WP:PRIMARY does not say that a priamry source has to be from an individual actually affiliated with a company as in the examples you give above. Newspaper articles reporting on events, for instance, are always considered primary sources even though the reporter is frequently not connected to the organization or event he may be reporting on. Therefore, your contribution in this debate is unhelpful at best and harmfully misleading at worst. You should not really bandy about votes like "speedy close" when you are completely clueless as to the arguments and terms being bandied about. Now, reviews can be considered secondary sources it is true with the original work of art being the primary source, so there is some room for debate here, just not in the way you frame it. In the scholarly world, a book review of another person's research, for example, would be a secondary source. I am honestly not sure if this applies to an opinion piece on a game, however, since they usually just report on the reviewer's experience playing. It is possible they do count, but its a slightly different track. Indrian (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Wikipedia, primary sources do not work that way. Wikipedia's definition of a "primary source" is a "source connected with the subject", it has nothing to do with time. It does not matter what About.com (which, by the way, is not a
      the useage of the term in phrasing and practice, by everyone on Wikipedia but you, is "a source directly connected with the subject", while for secondary source it is "a source not directly connected with the subject", with time-from-event being utterly irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • • Looking at the relevant section for primary sources it says Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. The nominator is free to disagree with this but this is currently how Wikipedia defines primary sources and an IGN review does not meet the criteria for a primary source. If the nominator wants to try to change the defination Wikipedia uses they are free to do so but that will need a larger venue than a single AFD.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IGN and Gamespot reviews are secondary sources, and sufficient to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The notion that somehow reviews from some of the biggest, most mainstream video game websites don't count as sources that satisfy the
  WP:GNG is absolutely ridiculous. Then there's the fact that I know this game was covered in print magazines in the 90's as well, it's not like this is some sort of non-notable flash game or something like that. At the very least Gamepro provided coverage on it. Easily meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Coverage from AllGame as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the NOM appears to be misconstruing the meaning of primary, somehow transposing an example and policy. Take a further look at
  WP:OR and its footnotes and the included links. Review articles are cited as being a very typical secondary source. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep/Close per rationales already given. Again, the sources are not primary. --Teancum (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be closed however the reviews should be added into a reception section (the IGN and GameSpot reviews at least, and possibly the Game Pro one if someone has access to old issues). I would do so myself for the online reviews but I am not very good at formatting references so I would feel more comfortable if someone else did so.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Major console video games are routinely considered notable. Not to mention a quick Google Search shows a lot of reasonable, reliable sources.
  Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:09, 26 July 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. While strong arguments have been advanced for deletion, the arguments for keeping are defensible based on past practice, and consequently we have no consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual eBay listings

Unusual eBay listings (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)

Amusing, but it seems to me like list of mostly random information, trivia even. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" comes to mind. Who determines what's "unusual", anyway? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence of notability for the concept underlying this list can be provided. I'm no kneejerk deleter of weird lists; in fact, I've been an outspoken defender of several weird lists here. In order to defend such a list, it is necessary to show
  reliable sourced coverage for the concept underlying the list -- ideally mainstream reliably source coverage. The article does not show evidence that the concept has obtained such coverage, and my Google searches find only non-RS interest in this topic. Additionally, there's no indication yet of a defensible set of inclusion criteria (tickling somebody's funnybone doesn't qualify). --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of these items are covered in reliable secondary sources makes this a valid list spinout of eBay. GNG is met. Prose and ordering could be cleaned up a bit, but for such a wide-open list (like, you know, the actual variety of eBay auctions...) this is actually pretty coherent and well sourced.
  WP:IINFO does not cover auction listings, and no policy-based rationale for deletion has yet been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, the individual items are covered by reliable sources, but where is the reliably sourced coverage indicating that the concept of unusual listings on eBay -- or even better the assembling of lists of such items -- is notable? I can create any number of lists of related items found in reliable sources (for example, people with weirdly dyed hair, to name one in the current news), but the fact that the individual items were documented in reliable sources doesn't make the compilation notable. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...You've got it backwards. If there are a series of reliable sources documenting a discrete topic, that topic is notable. The coverage of the list items is the notability of the list. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet,

verified doesn't change the fact that the topic "unusual ebay listings" in itself has to have received coverage. Coverage focusing on the event (the ebay sale itself) does not discuss the overall topic. There must be some sources acknowledging first the concept of an "unusual" ebay listing, then asserting that several instance of it exist ("listings"). I'm not denying that this coverage exist, just that your contention that lists are made notable by individual coverage on entries is incorrect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep – The article is actually well-sourced with reliable sources. The criteria for things being included on the list can be improved through basic copy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, I think your understanding of "Basic copy editing" is quite different from mine. Do tell how would you do it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens, as a legitimate spinoff of the eBay article, properly sourced material about notable listings that is too long to fit in the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens' claim that individual coverage on entries make the overall topic notable is in direct opposition with the
    established consensus on stand-alone lists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment The topic of the weirdest things being sold on ebay (considered as a group or category) is obviously notable, with many publications producing lists[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. There are numerous websites devoted solely or principally to the topic.[15][16][17][18][19][20] If this is the only issue surrounding the article, you have to keep it, but just because something's written about doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notability as a group clearly established by Colapeninsula's comment, along with references for the individual entries within the article itself. KTC (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator offers no policy based rationale for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I clearly said that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Which makes your only argument clearly false, thus you offer no policy (or any other) rationale for your vote having any merit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, fascinating, noteworthy, good coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you like it. How does that establish the meaning of "unusual"? Carrite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a sucker for these type of lists as
  WP:NOTNEWS applies for this. News sources love covering that stuff, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, and thinking something is unusual is original research at it's finest. If anything using that term makes the list unmaintainable as well. The secondary sources argument is badly misapplied here, and the rest is I like it/interesting comments. Secret ^account 08:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Colapeninsula. Though "unusual" is a subjective term that could do with clarification there are certainly sufficient valid external sources that have such lists. This article was obviously made to reduce such content in the main eBay article and does a good job while still being valid in and of itself. Each entry is sourced and gives sufficient indication of it being unusual (out of the billions that happen the few sales that are reported in the media automatically introduce them as being unusual). violet/riga _^[talk] 09:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sourcing and entertainment value does not make an encyclopedic topic. There is no way to define "unusual" as it means different things to different people. What we are left with is a junk drawer full of entertaining oddities and
  WP:ILIKEIT ain't enough... List of funny things printed in the New York Times and List of unusual clothing wouldn't be encyclopedic either, for the same reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Selectively merge to
  ebay. A standalone article isn't appropriate but we should mention a few of these on the ebay article to demonstrate the site's wide scope of listings. The hindrance to a standalone article is the subjective criterion of "unusual" and the indiscriminate nature of such an openended list. Creating a list of "unusual" subjects is nearly impossible to do without using original research, especially with this particular topic. ThemFromSpace 04:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:SENSATIONAL and thus not encyclopedic. If it is to be kept someone should try to wikify it using Colapeninsula's comment to generate a psuedo-notable list ala List of songs considered the best or List of films considered the worst. (But please don't. I like going to cracked.com for dumb lists and Auction Humor gives a more complete list of weird stuff on ebay). --Joshuaism (talk) 16:30, 31 July 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) 20:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Chasse aux papillons

La Chasse aux papillons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is little more than a subsection of its credits. No commentary about why the film may be interesting or notable. A fragrance called La Chasse aux papillons, from "a niche French perfume company", dominates English and French Google searches — Fly by Night (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable film as no notable actors were in it Seasider91 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  ISBN 2825116955. this The New York Times piece verifies that Otar Iosseliani received the Pasinetti Award for Best Direction for the film (which is an award of the Venice Film Festival). We shouldn't be hasty in judging notability from coverage in a google search when the topic is from 1992, before reliable sources widely published online content. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• SOLID Keep even a little
  improve them... not delete them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, an award-winning film, critical response available and cited in the article; Ioseliani is arguably the most notable Georgian film producer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator also missed the full-length 1993 review in The New York Times.[21] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon reading
  WP:NF I have determined this film does meet the criteria easily, there are 2 reviews 5 years after release, there are multiple awards so Keep 86.160.21.44 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 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.

Tumor necrosis factor

Tumor necrosis factor (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 page is redundant to

• Redirect to
  Tumor necrosis factors, simple enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree, but I want it clearly decided that no disambiguation page is needed, and that the content of this page should not be moved or replicated elsewhere in the project. bd2412 T 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Tumor necrosis factors which details TNF info anyways. The album can be linked with a hatnote when it is created--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep This is not a deletion discussion. The redirect should be to
  tumor necrosis factor-alpha, if anywhere, as this is what's usually meant by the term. Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The fact that a redirect will result from the discussion doesn't diminish the fact that an existing disambiguation page should be deleted. Your !vote is, after all, for the removal of the current content of the page, is it not? Unless you are advocating keeping the disambiguation page as is "speedy keep" is an incorrect statement of your intentions, and could be read as "keep the disambig". bd2412 T 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the article should be retained per
      WP:COMMONNAME. It's all a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. This discussion is a waste of time as no-one else has edited the article for months. Warden (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If you think the solution is that clear cut, I certainly won't object if you implement it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:11, 25 July 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. The sources provided will need to be integrated into the article by Greek/Danish/German speakers. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasse (musician)

Sasse (musician) (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:MUSBIO – Lionel ^(talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 July 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, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreferenced and no suitable merge / redirect targets within sight.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Per
  significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per [22], [23], [24], [25]; Resident Advisor has a brief biography of this producer: [26]. Appears being notable in his genre, and passing, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw my vote if/when those are integrated into article. I can't do it since none of the independent ones are in languages I speak.

Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 24 July 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.

David A. Schwedel

David A. Schwedel (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 biography of a non-notable businessman; lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The only news items I found are brief quotes in connection with somebody else. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are numerous sources within the article, some significant and some trivial. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, the Basic Guidelines allow for the combining of trivial sources in order to establish notability. That aside, there is plenty of independent significant coverage both in the article, and also not in the article (General notability guidelines state - "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."). This means that although the article does not source all of the available sources on the subject, they are still available and NOT citing them all within the article should not be cause to consider the article non-notable. Now, regarding notability, this person founded numerous businesses (which citations support), one of which became a huge business before it went defunct after being bought out (it was also traded on the NASDAQ). He is also the main investor for three very large companies which are also cited in the article. Further in the article, you will see that he was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit against
  talk) 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for this extensive list of sources. My opinion remains that most of these are not independent reliable sources, and those that are are not significantly about him; they are quoting him in connection with the legal problems of his friend and associate Bradley Birkenfeld. Notability is not inherited, and simply being quoted in an article about somebody else is not significant coverage. That is my interpretation, others may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - User Morning277 makes a very good job of showing notability trough additional sources. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources linked above meet the requirements of independence, reliability and significance of coverage of the subject, and I can find no others that do so. Press releases and passing mentions don't cut it.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I googled David's name and found a ton of stuff on him. I wouldn't call Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, or Forbes just any old run of the mill news source, thats top notch material. This is a very good article, and shouldn't even be here (AfD). Something worth deleting is stuff like this. Now thats a waste of space. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance or Forbes contain significant coverage of Schwedel?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With possibly one or two exceptions, everything in Morning277's list is trivial or non-mentions of the subject; the exceptions are the next level up from trivial i.e. superficial. Those recommending Keep above have no understanding of what notability means. EEng (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Morning277's list is a mixture of press releases, directory entries and passing mentions. None of them are useful for the purposes of establishing notability. I have a Highbeam account and can confirm that the paywalled article is the same as this one on Morning277's list. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Everyone makes a good point. Morning gives plenty of sources; however, there are some that are trivial. There are some notable sources; however, I think it is best to focus on basic notability guidelines and "combine the trivial mentions" and consider them notable. Combined with the other sources that are notable, this article would meet the notability guidelines. Unless there is something that I am missing from the "basic criteria" of Wikipedia:Notability (people). --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you point out which of those sources specifically contribute to notability? -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per SimonKnowsAll's points. While I'm not in favor of the Energizer Bunny's deletion, I'm pretty sure that as Jetijonez remarked, Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes are all good sources. StereotypicalApps (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, which specific sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes have significant coverage of Schwedel?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Everyone keeps saying: Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes. If you are talking about the sources cited in the article from those sources, here's what they are. Bloomberg Businessweek is an "executive profile"; such profiles are typically supplied by the company and thus are not independent. Yahoo Finance is a directory-type listing for one of his businesses and simply mentions him as CEO. The Forbes article merely lists him as one of 30 co-defendants in a lawsuit; the article is about someone else. Come on, folks, please take a LOOK at the links rather than being snowed by an impressive sounding source. This is not significant coverage by anyone's definition. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of RfD. Everyone here has their own interpretation of the notability guidelines. That is why RfD hopes to reach a consensus. Regardless of the 3 sources that you say are non-significant, there are plenty of other sources about him and his company that I feel are. Again, I want to point out (and it looks like there is only one other comment on this page about it) that numerous sources can be combined to be considered a reliable source. That is my contention. I still feel that there are reliable sources (or I would not have put them in the article) and that anything you (not I) would consider non-significant coverage can be looked at as a whole to establish notability. Again, I am not trying to argue with you, I am simply making a point that it is my contention that there are enough reliable (and "non-significant") sources to establish his notability. I guess the question that I would ask is "would you consider him notable based on the content in the article if there were sources that are considered significant according to what you feel is significant?"--

talk) 20:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In the absence of significant coverage, one can establish notability with an abundance of lesser coverage. However, what we have been shown so far is coverage that does not even rise to the level of lesser coverage. You now claim there are plenty of other sources that are significant. I'll happily change my mind if you or anybody can present them here. I've looked and didn't find anything significant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Whpq said. There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage. There is 1) non-independent coverage (which specifically does NOT count toward notability), 2) coverage that does no more than mention his name, and 3) coverage about another person in which he is quoted for a sentence or two. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My general feeling is that there is enough of a story on the subject to be of interest to Wikipedia readers. In the past, I have done other writing projects on the people involved in the early days of e-commerce and getting ideal references was difficult. Media coverage on the subject was sparse until it really caught on. Nevertheless, in this case I have found one more reference that supports the noteworthiness of David A. Schwedel. The book, "The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad" by Michael A. Cusumano has a detailed case study of Marex Inc. and highlights Mr. Schwedel's contributions to the business. Mr. Schwedel came up for the idea for the business in 1992 and was one of the early e-commerce pioneers as a result. The case study presented in that book also describes surviving the internet bust and more. This information is further supported by the above references, such Marex Inc. being named as part of the "Best of the Web" by Forbes.com. A google preview of the book is available here: [28]. Wolfrock (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow up the above 150 words with 150 words outlining what this source says about Schwedel himself (not about Marex) because that's all that matters. EEng (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to some of the coverage in that book about Schwedel. It can probably be counted as significant coverage. That's one. Now for the "multiple" part? Nothing else evident at Google Books - and IMO Google News Archive has already come up empty. (I wondered if Marex Inc. might qualify for an article instead, if this article is deleted - but again this book was about the only thing I found, aside from a NASA program named MAREX.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this is significant coverage is laughable. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I have to admit that I completely missed the reference that Wolfrock brings up. I will include it in the article. MelanieN, thank you for the comment I think you make a good point about MAREX maybe qualifying for its own article. However, the issue that I initially ran across with creating an article for Marex is that I do not know their current status. When you find press about Marex, it is linked to the time when David Schwedel was with them. The last reference that I could locate about them was when Brown Simpson Asset Management retained the Trippoak Group to restructure the company. There are no other sources that I can find that shows what happened to them or what name to search to find press about what they are now (I am speculating but knowing how these companies work the name was probably changed a couple of times and now it is just the proprietary rights to the software programs that are owned - and unknown by whom). I just got my HighBeam account but have not received an activation code yet. Hopefully I will be able to locate more references when I do receive it to show others coverage that they feel is more significant. --

talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Good luck. I wondered because many of the references currently in the article, or being suggested above, are actually more about Marex than they are about Mr. Schwedel. So it's possible you could make a better case for the company being notable, rather than the individual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MelanieN, Whpq, EEng, Phil Bridger, and
  WP:GNG. I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, either in the article itself or in the references listed in comments above. "There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage" is close to the mark. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment GNG = Guidelines not rules, this article has as much right to be in here as any other one does (based on the references provided by morning), cause God knows we need stuff like this, and this, thats what makes Wiki an encyclopedia --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's time to close this. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It was relisted on July 24 so it probably isn't due for closure until July 31. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, relisting does not extend the minimum discussion period. EEng (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention

WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Despite a long lsit of sources, not many are notable, and few are independent and reliable enough to substantiate notability of this guy. Fails
  WP:GNG. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sources presented do not satisfy the GNG, per Phil Bridger and Jimsteel9999. ThemFromSpace 03:57, 31 July 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) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Hitler

Alois Hitler (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." And as far as I can tell, other than being a father of a certain Adolf, Mr. Alois did nothing that would make him notable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While being related to a notable person does not automatically grant a person notability, it often can. In cases where a person is discussed in a large number of independent reliable sources, and the discussion is more then just a passing mention of their name as the relation of the notable person, they are notable. We don't try to read in to why the reliable source decided to cover the subject. As a practical matter, the close familiar relations of extremely notable individuals are very likely to meet the notability criteria because of the relation, all that the quote is saying is we don't assume they are notable just because of the relation. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Judging from the number of sources the subject is indeed notable in it's own. // Liftarn (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sources, and how would deleting this article improve the encyclopedia? --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with Monty, that the nom is confused about
  WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Obviously there have been many people who are indisputably notable but only because they were someone's brother, someone's wife, or someone's child, regardless of how we feel about the merits of their own accomplishments or lack thereof. This deletion nomination is particularly daft given that Adolf Hitler has to be one of the most biographied individuals ever in human history, and there is undoubtedly significant insight and information that biographies of his immediate family provide to the central question of how and why Hitler became what he was. To rulemonger in the face of that is an unfortunate attitude, even apart from the fact that the nominator didn't even get the rule right. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Monty and Postdlf. This man has been portrayed in numerous books and motion pictures, and the sourcing in this article is as good as it gets. See also past
  John Adams, Sr.. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Rules are tools, to be applied on the basis of good editorial judgment. They aren't supposed to be bombs that go off indiscriminately and do widespread collateral damage. Use
  WP:NOTINHERITED for its intended purpose, please.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 26 July 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) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Pollution

Like Pollution (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both asap. No google hits, pointless articles. We should allocate a new speedy criteria to such neologisms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - no sources seem to exist, both are pure WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEO... also, agreed, Dr. Blofield- that would really let us not have to waste time going through the AFD process to get rid of obvious neologisms. Ducknish (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a stubbified version of both to Like button, with an {{unreferenced section}} tag. It is highly unlikely that this is just a made-up hoax. The basic information seems sound, although I don't know what folks in the industry call this and therefore what terms to use when searching for sources. There is more to this subject than just the name, and NOTNEO doesn't authorize deletion of solid information merely because it happened to get posted under a poor article title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if no (or only very few) notable sources using the terms are found. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 22:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Like Pollution is an essay, not reflective of any notable concept outside of Wikipedia. Gratutious Liking was created by the same user a few hours later, covering essentially the same topic. I agree that the general concept is not a hoax; it is a criticism of social networking behaviour that at least one person dislikes. But neither is that notable or, as far as I can tell, discussed in published sources outside of these articles. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both I can't find proper sources for either. Silverseren^C 06:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete twain per
  WP:NOTNEO and Dr. Blofeld. Thanks! ⇒TAP 08:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both. I'm not citing any policies because this is an obvious no brainer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AFD tag that links here is placed on
  social networking article. WTF? (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Look again; it is on both. (The redlink doesn't mean that it doesn't link here; it has something to do with template caching that I don't understand, but if you click on it, you will come to this page). LadyofShalott 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Well, delete both pages anyways! WTF? (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the red link to blue by adding ?action=purge to the URL while viewing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both No sources exist, pure
  WP:OR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• While anyone who uses Facebook has certainly seen this, no sources=no article. This is one of the
  talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor Barbee

Baylor Barbee (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indications of

L1feLessonsLearned (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As near as I can tell, the book is self-published by the author's own company and therefore attracts no inherent
  general notability guideline. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 25 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 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.

]

B1438 road

Advanced search for:  "B1438"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Yes, Virginia, the B1438 exists in Suffolk, England

B1438 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats

)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a significant road. The reference to SABRE here fails

• Delete Google maps places it in Suffolk and anyone interested in what a fairly typical road in East Anglia is like could do worse than look at it in Streetview. But WP is not a roads catalogue, and I found no evidence of notability. --AJHingston (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This road is frequently mistaken for a section of the B1438 on satellite navigation systems and others.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What you need is a map. Try looking at 52°07′22″N 1°20′17″E / 52.1227°N 1.3380°E / 52.1227; 1.3380 on your favourite one. Yes, I followed the hyperlink on Ufford, Suffolk. And yes, the road number has been wrong in this article's title and contents right from the start. It's wrong in your Google search, too. Help is now at hand ⇗ for that latter, however. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the B1348 is in fact in East Lothian. The small section of road, about which this article is written is a section of the B1438. So, we should either delete this article or rewrite it for the correct road.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  17:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we could rename the article to the correct road number. Will you look at that! Someone seems to have done exactly that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improbable. The article is probably about B7438 with a misprint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 2012-07-28 17:54:26
      • No. The article really is about the B1438. The kind someone did fix this for you all a week ago, so that you wouldn't be all confused as to what the subject of the article even was and get lost discussing the wrong things. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme - I believe that most B-roads are considered to be insufficently notable for stand-alone articles, but a redirect to the list is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ‐ Road is not significant, if you want road details visit OpenStreetMap -- johndrinkwater (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, which is the normal solution for any road where the only thing to say about it is where it goes to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Previous discussions have shown us B roads are not notable and this is too small.
  (Talk to me!) 13:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge The entry in B1438 in the B-roads list article says that it is at Woodbridge, Suffolk and "Was the A12 before bypassing". This appears to be correct. Accoring to the road-numbering system in use in GB, English and Welsh roads start with the digits 1-6 and Scottish roads with 7-9. The newspapaer citation is accordingly probably a misprint for B7438. A Google maps suggests that B1438 is called Ipswich Road and then Melton Road; after Melton, it becomes Yarmouth Road. As an old line of the A12 road (England) it will be appropriate for the subject to be covered under that article. I think I have covered roads downgraded when a bypass has been built in articles such as A38 road. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wrong Gmaps shows that there is a B1438 going past
    Cockenzie Power Station in Scotland. If kept this article needs to be renamed B1438 road (England), with the resultant redirect being converted to a dabpage with B1438 road (Scotland). However, we may be better without either. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • At User talk:Uncle G#UK Road Sources I pointed out to the nominator here that there's a whole load of 1970s stuff missing from Wikipedia, in particular the construction of the 11.5km "Ufford and Wickham Market Bypass", whatever that is. As I said there, I leave this hole in the encyclopaedia for road article writers such as you and Ritchie333 to fill. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it would be nice to get some road articles up to GA status, and filling out these details is one way of progressing towards that. Reason I haven't done anything yet is a combination of a) not having much post-1961 research at my disposal (maps are still in copyright after this) b) it's not somewhere I've been often and c) I'm taking a general break from editing road articles and doing other stuff on WP having banged my head against the wall at the endless bickering in things like this. (Sorry!) --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme - Road may not be important enough for its own article but can always be covered in a list. Dough4872 00:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment o.0 Its
  Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO, just trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources (ordinary positions and activities). The article was apparently deleted in the first nomination, but has now popped again. Brandmeister^talk 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I would say it's a very borderline case but of interest, the nominator for the first AfD (which was successful) is a contributor to this second-launching version. I would be interested in what he has to say on this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep under criteria 5 (article linked from the Main Page at the time the nomination was submitted). --Allen3 ^talk 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Allen3. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Struck as the rationale no longer applies, new rationale below[reply]

• Speedy keep Easily passes WP: GNG with many reliable sources. Electric Catfish 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response It was the link on the homepage under DYK that drew my attention to the article. Fundamentally the article says: the subject is a journalist of no particular merit; and he has a blog, which itself lacks notability. For those reasons I urge Delete, although I take note of the speedy keep argument.
• Speedy keep, small portion of
  general notability guideline. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per WilliamH. GNG requires significant coverage in a major source or less significant coverage in many major sources. This qualifies for the former and appears to meet the latter as well. Let's take a moment to consider the purpose of the notability guideline. Wikipedia should not be the first place that a subject is mentioned in an in depth manner. We require that another reliable source has determined the subject to be notable. That way, we don't have to. It is clear that Yiannopoulos has been determined to be notable by The Guardian. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WilliamH. I nominated him first time round but he's been profiled in the Guardian since then, which strikes me as a good definition of primary coverage in a notable news source.Soupy sautoy (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic meets the
  WP:GNG with sufficient coverage by independent sources. I have checked enough sources to verify this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per The Guardian and other related sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]