Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 9

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. I have to agree with the "keep" !voters here. I don't see a strong enough consensus to make an exception to our longstanding tradition of keeping such articles. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khtum Reay Lech

Khtum Reay Lech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Very short article that does not indicate why "Khtum Reay Lech" is important or notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a village, and by editor consensus, villages are notable regardless of size. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But villages still have to verifiably exist before they can be considered notable.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 28 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia's
  notability, I don't think that we need this article. NJ Wine (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - as the village's existiance can be
  verified, Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer calls for the article to be retained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 9 June 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 22:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The usual situation for a village. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per Wikipedia's
  Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per NJ Wine. it can always be recreated if sufficient info comes to light. Given that Northamerica1000 has not dug up links it must be a pretty minor location. Lets not forget that we are quibbling about an "article" that contains one damn sentence. Please realise that deletion is not permanent. The article can alway be recreated at a later stage. We are wasting out time here (he says without a hint of irony). There are thousands of other article that need creating that are far more important than this one. Think about context, rationality, cost-benefit analysis, the Big Picture. ...sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The timewasting is caused by this not being automatically closed as "keep" once a reliable source was found. The cost-benefit analysis is that it would take more work to recreate this from scratch rather than leave it alone for people to improve if and when they find more sources.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep – Any settlement like this is notable enough. We have articles on all the villages of Australia, then why not Cambodia. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:23, 16 June 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 Minor seventh. Seems to be consensus to redirect/delete; no one has opposed the redirect to the musical interval, which seems helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor 7th

Minor 7th (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 found no reliable sources covering this. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  I didn't find the nomination to be useful to prepare a community discussion.  Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent.  There are no sources on the article itself, the article was created in January 2008 and has had a quiet history, with only one brief comment on the talk page.  The topic is not listed at Worldcat.org.  There is no press page on the topic's website that would make our job easier.  The topic has no Google news hits.  I tried various Google searches to confirm the facts in the article without success, for example [+"Alan Fark" +"Minor 7th" -wiki -wikipedia 1999].  There are Google hits that mention the site in various ways and the topic seems legit.  It appears to have remained stable for over ten years, which is an indicator of notability.  If a topic fails notability, we then need to consider if there are appropriate targets for merger.  This is the point where I looked at the "What links here", which is an area that needs attention.  Looking at two links, one is an incorrect link needing the musical interval, and one is a legitimate link to the article.  At this point, I'm posting my findings without a recommendation.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need not be "high risk" to be nominated for AfD. Anything any editor believes to fail any of the criteria for necessitating a full article can be nominated

p 03:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your comments sound odd. I said that it fails

WP:WEB. I don't need to type a long drawn out explanation. Why do you think that articles should be high risk? Existing for a long time is not an indicator because coverage is. You said yourself that you found no coverage so not having a position is odd as well. SL93 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic.  If I may ask, did you follow step B5 of WP:BEFORE, to check "What links here"?  Have you done any analysis of possible merge targets?  I was preparing a Delete !vote until I clicked on "What links here"  Either this source is getting used a lot and we are missing the sources we need to show notability, or maybe we need to merge to a notable topic and keep the redirect, or there are a several links that need to be cleaned up.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the, "Why does a lot of stuff link here?", minor seventh is a common Interval. It's quite possible that many of the things that link there are references to the interval rather than the magazine

To the Step B5 of BEFORE, I must remind you that BEFORE is not policy, not a guideline, and not mandatory. The same could be said of Ritzman's AfD triage system

p 05:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I do the searching part of

WP:AFD, but there is no consensus that it should be required despite the many discussions. Maybe there is consensus among inclusionists, but I am not an inclusionist. Until a guideline or policy is created about following Before, there is no reason to harass editors with it. SL93 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: per not having any sources and per even the Google search not being that fruitful
  p 03:00, 4 June 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 22:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no proof that any reliable sources have made themselves known. Also suggest redirect to Minor seventh, the musical term, as a likely search. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I presented my high risk/low risk idea in
  Stargate SG1 would be an example of a "low risk" article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The statements to which you seem to be trying to respond are, "Nor is the topic is a "high risk" article whose AfD discussion is urgent." and "It is part of Ron Ritzman's theory of AfD nominations that the standards for the quality of AfD nominations can be lower/neglected when an article is a BLP consideration, or a "high risk" topic."  The source for this statement is archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_89, regarding AfD nominations by either blocked or banned editors, where the statement is dated 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about that one. In that case the subject was AFDs started by banned editors and last time I checked, SL93 isn't banned. As to how he found such a little known out of the way article, I use to wonder the same thing myself. In SL93's case, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, I think he patrols categories for articles with notability issues and

his (sic) articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I generally avoid off-site references regarding Wikipedia editors, if it is important for regular editors, the admins need to put it on Wikipedia.  Also, please note that

WP:TPG states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Not notable per the criteria of
  WP:GNG. I could find absolutely no independent coverage of this online magazine. Google search found only self-referential items and of course this article. Google News found no independent mentions at all. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually I like TPH's suggestion of a redirect to Minor seventh. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lamont

Elizabeth Lamont (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've raised notability concerns regarding this article before and I think a

• Comment: I'm inexperienced, but I noticed on the Australian Churchill Memorial Trusts website that it has been awarded 3500 times in Australia since the 1960s. Does this affect our interpretation of significance?
  Howdy! 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. The Churchill Fellowship is a
  WP:ARTIST.Sarahj2107 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No indication of wp:notability. No wp:notability-suitable references or coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 11 June 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  06:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta

List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta (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 information really need to be in a separate article?  TOW  talk  22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looking at
  talk) 22:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as unnecessary duplication. No need to merge because the contents of this page were/are in the main Rajat Gupta page at Rajat_Gupta#Affiliation_List. From that page's history, appears the author split this page from the main page because of edit warring with no consensus. Many of the claimed affiliations are unsourced, poorly sourced or contentious. Discussion is already ongoing at Talk:Rajat_Gupta on how to deal with the list as part of the main article. The separate article should be deleted. DocTree (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Swliv, Monstermike and I have gone back and forth about this forever. It's temporarily duplicated until we can figure out what to do -- there was no consensus between the three of us about whether it should be its own page or on Rajat Gupta's page. No deletion rationale has been put forward on this list, however. All of the affiliations are sourced and not contentious -- I have sourced every one -- please write on my talk page if you think anything's missing. Thanks! My[2011] (talk) | 01:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly absurd overcoverage. This is an integral part of anyone's biography. The only such section which we frequently accept as a separate article is a bibliography/disocgraphy/filmography -- I'm pretty ambivalent about that, also, except for truly famous creative people, and it would be a very bad mistake to let this sort of article split expand any further. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists

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 IP user. Reason given on talk page is: "Article exists solely to promote the dogma that human science was advanced because of, rather than despite, the Roman Catholic Church. See the sole author's bizarre polemic on the talk page: 'The Church conceives of itself as Catholic because that is the nature of the Church founded by Christ. This universality through space and time is a work in progress and was set in motion by Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. The Church had this mandate from the beginning.'" I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The IP user provides no rationale for the deletion of the article other than the fact that he seems to disagree with it. IMO article is a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia project. Akasseb (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very one-sided article without proper sources. I don't think it can be rescued.
  _talk 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep- has some huge POV issues, but these can be fixed through proper editing. The contributions made to science by the Roman Catholic church are indisputably a topic that can and should be covered here. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is considerable overlap with
  List of Catholic scientists. The two articles should not be left as they are and this is the weakest. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Galileo was a cleric, in fact (canon of Brescia and Pisa, from 1630). However, he is not included on the list. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There's a few promotional sentences that could be removed, but any bias that still remains is surely fixable. Lists which have any reasonable and objective inclusion criterion provide an additional way for people to access Wikipedia content. Any problem is with the introductory text, in my opinion. Deducing that the names of the moon craters show the 'Church's commitment to astronomy' can be reworded. I would rephrase the sentence to take out the last four words. I'd not want the title to be Contribution of Catholicism to science since we would then be asking if it was a net positive, and this could get us far afield. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep after severe pruning to remove POV-gush. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep. Useful list with well-defined inclusion criterion. Nomination seems to be based solely on
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Serious pruning of the intro was desirable (I have now pruned it), and the list might be broadened to non-Catholic clerics; but that's not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The content of the article may violate
  WP:NPOV and may even be incorrect, but the topic itself is notable and relevant enough. --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 06:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Based on the responses here and the recent changes made I think the AfD tag can be removed from the article. Since I have been the main editor of the article, however, I will let someone else make that edit.Akasseb (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think

WP:SNOW applies (and indeed that this should never have been nominated), but there has been one !vote for deletion (poorly explained though it is). I think that means the AfD has to run its course. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I am fairly new to this process. What is the normal course? Right now the AfD tag is a black eye on the article meant to call into question its credibility. It is fairly obvious that the IP user who nominated the article for deletion did so simply because he does not like it.Akasseb (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion lasts for 7 days and then an administrator, who, unlike me, has not commented to the discussion, will come along and close the discussion. It may be closed early if the consensus is clear. Meanwhile, could some one clarify my points above? Could this list of clerics be merged into the wider

List of Catholic scientists? It seems to me that it could, so my !vote is for merge.--Bduke (Discussion) 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I would argue against a merge; the important thing is that the figures here are clerics, while the other list is people who happen to be Catholic. Both lists are useful, although possibly the other list could be restricted to non-clerics. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am against merging the articles. The list of cleric-scientists has a certain distinctness and clarity that must be preserved. The general list of Catholic scientists is intended to be all-encompassing. I would consider the idea of limiting the second list to lay Catholic scientists, but I think it works better as a master list (it just needs to be expanded).Akasseb (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a perfectly notable topic. Some of the list might be pruned, but AfD is not meant for pushing along the normal editing process. I can't see how anybody could look at this article and reasonably conclude that it violates
  POV fork of the History of science, but concern does not translate into a mandate for deletion: that's why we watch pages. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Correction for the record: it took 12 days (not three) to go from proposed speedy deletion to Did You Know? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles have gone from AfD to DYK. Bird Neighbors is one of the more recent. -- 202.124.75.87 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Normally I'd be a little skeptical of such a cross-combination of categories, but I do known that Jesuits and the like have played a significant role in astronomical observation and discovery. A good example is Angelo Secchi. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 14 June 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 Blood Confession

The Blood Confession (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)

Only one review does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to an article about the author I see three reviews, which by our accepted standard is notability, and the book is in 348 libraries according to WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2005-78259], making it mildly notable, though not famous. (dream Guy, "next to no copies" in this genre is numbers under 100; there's usually a match between reviews and library holdings, because public and school libraries buy primarily on the basis of the reviews in the review sources listed.) However, Libby has written a later book The king's rose which is considerably more important, with 578 holding libraries. Though we could therefore write an article on each, one on the author would seem the better choice here, and I will repurpose this article to that, if it is kept, using it as a basis and a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as non-notable. Reviews are not a measure of notability, certainly not only 3 reviews. Really, every book gets reviewed somewhere. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 24 May 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,  Sandstein  21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, reviews are a measure of notability when they're done by sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. The first part of
  talk) 04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sufficient reviews for notability. Reviews are the substantial sources that make a book notable. What else could one expect to be written about a book? DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find anything significant about this book from any major source. The article cites a few reviews (although one of them is actually a review of another book by the same author, which mentions this one in passing). But they are not from anything we would consider a major source, such as a major metropolitan daily. Granted, such sources may not often take note of "young adult fiction" like this, but that just means that the book isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Google News found that review of the second novel (twice) and otherwise just a note about a local book signing. The other sources at the article are from I'll-review-anything blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 1 June 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,  Sandstein  21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm undoing my "delete" "no consensus" closure and relisting this discussion following a comment on my talk page.  Sandstein  21:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems to have just-enough suitable coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough reviews to meet GNG are currently present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This book has an adequate number of reviews and it is held in 348 Worldcat libraries as noted by DGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see that DGG has voted "Merge" and "keep". I wanted to strike out DGG's "merge" vote, but I can't yet, unless there's no problem. Anyway, there are reviews and a plot that could make this topic notable. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 14 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitson & Partners

Kitson & Partners (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:CORP. Could also be spam by stealth? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable at this time. There is one significant item of coverage, from the New York Times, but one significant item of coverage is not enough. Everything else I found, and everything else cited in the article, is routine local business coverage. It's possible the partnership could become more notable in the future, so perhaps a redirect to Syd Kitson should be considered in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender

Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article describes, in great detail, the various forms of magic portrayed in a TV series and related works. This is contrary to

• Delete, entirely in-universe, sourced only to the episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reasons I've nominated many other Avatar-related articles for deletion/merging, i.e., in-universe, etc. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, have to agree with the nominator, this is material that is much more appropriate to the fan wiki that wikipedia. Current sourcing seems to be entirely 1st party products. Derekloffin (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I failed to find enough reliable sources that would prove that "bending" has real-world significance. What content there is could be in a setting or plot section of
  csdnew 05:31, 12 June 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} 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoggyRide

DoggyRide (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 product has not been the subject of sustained, independent coverage. DoggyRide is just one of many models of bicycle trailers on the market, which has only received very brief mention in various "product roundup" or "new product" capsule reviews in the bicycling press. See also

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails
  WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Per above and
  WP:soap. Bjenks (talk) 02:50, 14 June 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Botín Art Centre

Botín Art Centre (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)

Speculative piece on unbuilt arts centre, no RS, PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

• Speedy delete copyvio (tagged as such).
  talk) 20:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: page has been deleted as copyvio, please close this AFD. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 9 June 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 deleted as a copyvio (non-admin close). Singularity42 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konpa Kreyol

Konpa Kreyol (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)

Unsourced, overly-promotional article that does not appear to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - copyvio; so tagged. No comment on notability etc.
  talk) 20:11, 9 June 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 The A-List: New York. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaden James

Kaden James (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 references, all links are to social media. claim to fame: one song used in a tv show, some music on rotation on mtv. no references that i could find. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I can vouch that "A Boy Like Me" is the theme song for The A-List. I was able to verify that via a streaming video of the series. However, that part of the
  talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I cleaned up the blatantly promotional text. To be honest, that might've been a wasted effort since the notability scale is tipped against him. I'll see what sources I can find.
  talk) 20:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Considering that I just discovered that the entire block of text was copied directly from James' blog and a press release, editing it saved this from being a copyvio.[1] I'm going to guess that this was all added by James himself or a publicist.
  talk) 20:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete or redirect to
  talk) 20:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG, so redirecting to the TV show that uses his song as its theme seems reasonable.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Neutral - on one hand, the murder seems to be significant and has coverage by multiple reliable sources. On the other...it does not seem to be very notable. But I'm leaning "Keep" at the moment.
  Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:14, 17 June 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  07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Correa

Vladimir Correa (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 significant coverage found, and fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vladimir Correa was one of the most popular gay pornographic actors of the late 1980s and early 1990s. He started a new trend in pornography of a gay pornographic actor appearing in bisexual films. He often was featured as the star nude dancer at various pornographic theatres that had nude dancers in major metropolitan areas. The many films he appeared in (listed in the article) were best-sellers. His dark "Latino Lover" looks and muscular physique is part of what made him so popular. The gay pornographic awards did not come into existence until the late 1990s so that is apparently why he wasn't nominated for one. There are many important regular actors who never got Academy Awards. The article is very well referenced with many third party sources. THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE. Keraunos (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The AVN Awards covered gay porn from 1986 to 1998, during most of Correa's career (1986–2001). If Vladimir Correa made these great contributions to porn, reliable or even semi-reliable sources would have been around to acknowledge them. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As I pointed out in the initial AFD, no claim to meeting WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject satisfies the GNG. The "references" go entirely to unreliable sources, sources which simply recite castlists or otherwise provide no significant information on the subject, or sources which mention the subject in passing without providing any encyclopedic information. This is a BLP bolstered by bogus sourcing. As Gene93k accurately notes above, the porn industry provided its own recognition of performers in same-sex films during the period the performer was active (see also List of gay pornography awards. GBooks search turns up no significant references to the subject in histories of the genre, although such works have supported claims of notability for other performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with regret. Although I would like to think that Correa had notability, and I agree that he was popular during his career, I cannot find any way in which he meets WP:PORNBIO. I'm all for inclusion of gay performers but I just can't muster a reasonable argument to retain this article. Ubelowme (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you all are applying the WP:PORNBIO policy too rigidly. Gay pornography was not a highly organized industry before the late 1990s like it is now. It was hard to get an AVN award because then gay pornography was a subgenre of the main pornography industry. There were not huge numbers of awards offered like there are now. The many popular, well known, and significant gay pornographic movie stars of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s would not be able to meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria so there should be different criteria for those whose careers took place in the 1980s and before. Keraunos (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If anything Keraunos says is verifiable, it needs to be sourced and added to the article, not the AFD.

Hipocrite (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to the
    AVN Award article, there were no gay awards given out before 1990 at all. After that, there were only about four or five gay awardd per year until 1998 when the GayVN Awards began to be given out in large numbers. So the WP:PORNBIO criteria are invalid before 1998 and need to be changed. Keraunos (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Until this policy is changed we need to use it. Which means that porn bios of Gay potn stars are not considered notable. 15:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this article - it has no place in an encyclopedia and does not pass
  WP:GNG
  nor makes a clear statement of who the article is realy about - what they guys name? I don't think there is any reason to keep this article if this basic question cannot be adressed since it is impossible to verify who this article is about.OrenBochman 15:25, 15 June 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.

Every Day (Sick Puppies Song)

Every Day (Sick Puppies 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)

No indication of meeting

• Keep It definitely meets WP:NSONGS guidelines as the song was very popular on Australia's biggest indie radio station, Triple J, produced a music video and even helped the band win the prestigious annual Triple J Unearthed band competition in 2001, therefore making the single notable (not to mention there's an exclusive track on the single). Not only is it notable, there is new content in the article. There is also no use of personal knowledge in the article whatsoever. (Splasher9), 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it meet

  WP:NSONGS? I am seeing nothing to back up your claims above - which do not appear in the article either. I am finding nothing to show Triple J Unearthed is "prestigious", there seems very little about it on google - especially considering it is supposed to be an on-line competition now. Having a video made does not make it notable. noq (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're not finding much about it on Google? Did you check Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unearthed_(talent_contest). In the article you can see that Sick Puppies won it, so I don't see how that claim is not backed up. I will admit that a music video does not make a song notable, bad point by me. I have not yet updated the article to include the competition, but I was finding reliable sources and planning to add it in before this was filed for deletion. The contest has been going for 17 years counting in one form or another, is run by Australia's biggest indie/alternative radio station, the winners always receive fair media coverage and only in 2006 did it change to an online competition, so for an Australian music competition, it's prestigious no-doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a reliable source - you cannot use another article to establish notability for this article. Besides, that article does not have a reference to the group winning it or this song in particular being instrumental in that. noq (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NSONGS, notability is not inherited from the band or the radio station. The two references are a blog and a link through to a place to buy... --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/unearthed/past/ That site confirms that Sick Puppies won the competition, and also, only 2 songs had been made from the trio at the time of their win (not including tracks off of their extremely rare first EP): Nothing Really Matters and Every Day. So it's obvious that Every Day played a major role in Sick Puppies Unearthed win. I am not saying that the song is notable because of the radio station, rather the popular competition that the station held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That makes no mention of the song at all. You are surmising that it played a major role. Having no idea how the competition is judged or was at the time I cannot make that conclusion. And again, I have seen nothing to suggest the competition itself is prestigious. noq (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources that cover this song in detail, and it doesn't seem useful as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:00, 17 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Dance For

Something to Dance For (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

Delete, no reliable sources to prove notability. Sumsum2010·T·C 17:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is also a borderline

WP:CSD#G5. It was created by a sock of Jerome0012, and it's hard to describe the contributions of the other editors as "substantial". If I hadn't already nominated the article, I would have deleted it when I blocked RomeAntic14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as

WP:NSONGS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Non-notable song. Although editor has at least attempted to make a decent article unlike all too many tracklist and infobox efforts, but the sources are of no use.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:59, 12 June 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.

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez (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, an unnecessary

• Comment The main Jennifer Lopez article is probably too long, and this seems to have been created to help solve that problem, as well as to avoid having separate articles on all her boyfriends/husbands/partners. I'm not sure if this is the best way to partition it into separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through the "Life and career" section of Jennifer Lopez and most, if not all, of the relevant information on her personal life is already included there. SplashScreen (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What part of
  summary is a very good option, better than deleting everything. Diego (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The part of

WP:LOSE. SplashScreen (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, valid split-off article with sufficient size to stand alone. At best, this would be merged back to
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and is inaccurate in any event where the sources are not tabloid gossip rags but instead mainstream magazines and news outlets. This isn't merely transitory news either, because any biography of Lopez would include this info even though many of these relationships are now years old.

  There seem to be many WP editors who feel that info on anything other than accomplishments is not encyclopedic, as if biographies should be purged of anything personal. But the focus on this kind of personal information is not specific to entertainers or celebrities, nor limited to tabloid gossip; see Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Ann Rutledge (believed to be Lincoln's first love, notable for no other reason), Personal relationships of Alexander the Great, Personal relationships of James VI and I... If someone is notable, we want a full and rich portrait of them as human beings, not just their resumés. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I could go on about how the concept of the "Beatles wives", and the vast amount of research and cultural comment that surrounds them, makes McCartney's relationships independently notable. There is a distinct difference between this and the amount of boyfriends that JLo has had. The same can be said about the relationships of the historical figures that you mention. It's not about whether or not I like or dislike a subject (I happen to have a few JLo songs on my iPod, as it happens) and it's not about whether a subject has had a documented love life, it's about whether the subjects's love life is independently notable for a seperate article. Jennifer Lopez fails this test. All notable details surrounding her dating history and other personal issues are currently documented in the main article, so this isn't even a question of a merge. This is just an unnecessary content fork. If we need to make the Jennifer Lopez article smaller, I suggest we look at the Legacy section as this in itself seems broad enough to sustain its own article. A "full and rich" portrait of people's lives?

WP:EVERYTHING. Whilst you've presented a fairly interesting rant, it doesn't seem to contain a strong enough argument to keep this article other than "you just don't like her", "the JLo page is too long" or "we have one for Him out of The Beatles". SplashScreen (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Even each of non-notable relationships is suitable for this article, as this could be a detailed notable life about these non-notable subjects. Also,
  WP:GNG and WP:notability. It has significant coverage, reliable sources, and widespread criteria to pass GNG. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd argue that articles such as

WP:PLOTSUM as their details are relevant in establishing a wider subject of a source picture. The opposite applies here, as false reports about JLo "struggling" with pregnancy has absolutely no impact on what she is primarily notable for. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge back into the main article and split off something else. Seriously, who thought that products and endorsements were more important than her personal life? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why merging? Which part are too insignificant as part of this article? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand. I believe this is too significant to shunt aside (at least to the press and her fans) and works better within the context in the main article. I'd rather split off less important stuff like her commercial interests and philanthropy and maybe her legacy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I think postdlf here basically covered why this page should be kept. I don't quite understand why I wasn't notified that this was nominated for deletion, seeing as how I created the article. I think it should also be noted that this is the second article I created that this user has specifically nominated for deletion in the past two weeks alone. Also, as a main contributor to Jennifer Lopez-related articles, this article and her main article are currently undergoing huge construction; have been for a while. The article was in such bad shape previously. Not all information present in this article is also present in her main article. There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia; with this being no different. Besides the fact that J.Lo is known for her amount of high profile relationships, the article also contains information about her children, legal issues and the ever so controversial Scientology. — Statυs (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a bit of a non-argument. "There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia" -

WP:RNPOV, violation right there. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, salt, scorch the earth, drive a stake through the ashes, pave it over, and put a parking lot on top of it. An appalling violation of BLP principles. Wikipedia is not a directory of celebrity hooks or a repository for the tabloidery that passes for celebrity journalism. Any editor who believes that content like "Combs and Lopez were rumored to be back together following her split from Cris Judd, which was untrue" or "It was also rumored that Lopez and Anthony became Scientologists during that period with the help of Angelo Pagan, the husband of The King of Queens actress and Scientologist Leah Remini" or "Lopez's relationship with actor Ben Affleck ended from overexposure" (which turns out to have no reliable sources, despite a pile of gossipy references that turn out to say no such thing) belong in this encyclopedia should be topic banned from editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP concerns for her privacy about these relationships); Latina/o Stars in U.S. Eyes: the Making and Meanings of Film and TV Stardom ("...in this chapter I explore Jennifer Lopez's career and the publicity she received as a window into shifts in Latina/o opportunity and status in Hollywood, the United States, and increasingly, in global media..."); Media, Minorities, and Meaning: A Critical Introduction ("This study draws upon and extends Guzman and Valdivia's (2004) analysis of media presentation and press coverage of three Latina icons (Selma Hayek, Frida Kahlo, Jennifer Lopez)"; Black Cultural Traffic: Crossroads in Global Performance and Popular Culture ("The media coverage of one of the most public and successful hip-hop entrepreneurs, Sean Combs, demonstrates this ... including trials for criminal wrongdoing and romantic involvement with Puerto Rican superstar Jennifer Lopez"). So the article could even be further expanded with this academic metacommentary on the media commentary on her personal life. But even if it turned out that the article can be trimmed down to the point at which its verifiable and encyclopedic content is not sufficiently large that it can't be merged back into the article, fine, but that calls for an editing decision scalpel, not a deletion decision wrecking ball. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Whilst you've made a nice argument for why this information should be included in Wikipedia, you haven't made a good argument for why this information should be included in its own article on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD we don't have a deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That "SIZE" guideline... led List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes to be split terribly, and not any of us know what to do with split articles. It suffers from fancruft mostly and shoddy arrangements. I tried to help minimize use of Template:very long, but somehow sufferably long articles and badly-arranged articles get in the way, and.... I don't know. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to the
  talk ^edits 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Quoting Postdlf: "The media coverage on her itself has been the topic of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, even academic studies." The media is a huge part of J.Lo's life, as it is even stated in the article that it put a negative look on her career. Hardly any of the information located in this article is actually present on Jennifer Lopez, as it was completely removed from the article when this one was created. Some of it was re-added, not by me I might add. I say you get over the fact there are a few questionable sentences (and forces) in the article and look at the entire thing. — Statυs (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am entitled to express my opinion! You are being aggressive for no apparent reason. I have striked my delete and will change to keep if the article gets a haircut, and thus no longer violates
      talk ^edits 10:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I am not being aggressive; I'm just stating a fact. Just because an article has some few questionable sources does not mean that it should be deleted. Also, you are free to give the article a haircut if you ever so wish to. I've trimmed it down myself a bit. — Statυs (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lopez has so much diverse personal life that is enough for creating sorely a stand alone article. —
  (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note It should also be noted that redirects of men who she was in a relationship that do not have an article with redirect to here. — Statυs ≠ 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or selectively merge back to the main article. The existence of this article is pretty much incompatible with
  WP:BLP's principle that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Any aspects of her personal life that are encyclopedically important must be able to be condensed to a length that fits into her main article.  Sandstein  05:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "With regard for the subject's privacy" would imply that Jennifer Lopez hasn't admitted her relationships yet. "Written conservatively" is either vague or ambiguous and is not totally limited to "size"; nevertheless, even self-unpublished "truth" must not be included in this article under that policy. If Lopez hasn't publicized "truth" about her own love life, then some content must be removed from this article. Even if small, how would the main article itself be split up and summarized? Still, I don't think a violation of

  WP:BLP is a reason to delete this article --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge back into her main article. We should not have Personal life of forks for celebrities. While some details on their personal lives are relevant, an entire article is likely to just turn into a collection of trivial minutiae and fancruft, and is an unfair imposition on their privacy to boot. This kind of stuff belongs in tabloid journalism, not WP. Quite simply, no article entitled "Personal life of X" should be permitted, for all Xs.
  talk) 10:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Only it has been shown extensively that this topic is not merely one of "tabloid journalism" but has been covered by mainstream media sources, and even academic books. It's also off the mark to urge deletion on the basis of concern for privacy for someone who has purposefully lived their life (and not merely their career) in the public eye. We're talking about one of the most highly publicized celebrities of the past couple decades, and even that publicity itself has been the subject of significant commentary. Your last two sentences really make your comment seem like it's just a case of
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 10 June 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) 12:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist note: I've relisted this for a few reasons; there is clearly no consensus at the moment, BLP is relevant here, and the article has been heavily edited during the AfD. I suspect that a simple No Consensus would not be helpful to what is an important AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not have "personal life of .." articles, particularly of living persons, as they are a target for vandalism that goes against the BLP policies. What needs to be said can be in the main article. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That an article might be
    WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Question to those who vote delete or merge How would either of those things be done? Jennifer Lopez is in chronological order of events. It would not be accurate to just, say, take each relationship and paste it somewhere within the article. Some of this is also irrelevant to her main article, but still has importance to her life, such as the bump that she found on her child's head days after birth, which inspired her to create a charity.
• Bduke, before you leave your "vote", you should really actually read the article for yourself. I've also added a little bit of information on the influence/effect her personal life has had on her career. If you flat out don't believe in "personal life of..." articles, then I suggest you go nominate all the ones that exist for deletion and see what will happen. With, if you already didn't know already happened previously. Statυs (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did read the article, but thanks for pointing out the other articles and their AfD discussion. I entirely agree with the nominator of that AfD discussion. These articles give overdue weight to what is largely gossip. It is certainly possible to give enough details in the primary article and in this case that is already essentially done. Some information can also be given in articles on the persons who the subject has had relationships with. Nevertheless it is clear that there is a sharp division of opinion on this matter. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ojani Noa, for example, does not have an article, since he is not notable outside of his relationship with Lopez. They have taken each other to court multiple times, including a tell-all book he wanted to write about her and a sex tape he wanted to sell.
  don't like it. Statυs (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It looks like you have a touch of
  ownership of this article. The quote you give makes my point. The main article already has "Lopez married Cuban-born Ojani Noa, who she met while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant; they were divorced by January 1998". I am not even sure that "while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant" is needed there, although the date of the wedding should be there. The date of the engagement and the ring is not encyclopedic. We are not writing a biography. We are writing an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should give concise facts and point to sources where the reader can get more information. It does not have to cover everything, nor should it. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Okay, so, let me get this straight: first you come in here with
  the ways I am showing such acts. I would love for someone to help assist me with this article, but no one seems to really care. How is that information not relevant? Lopez later employed him at a restaurant she opened, and fired him not soon after. Which turned into to a lawsuit. Statυs (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: It passes WP:GNG, without question. The amount of ink spilled and bytes used to chronicle the personal life of Jennifer Lopez exceeds that devoted to some entire ancient civilizations. Allow discussion to continue after AfD as to merger of content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm surprised that this AFD is relisted, even after long talks. I stroke "keep" because, sometimes, not all subtopics benefit a stand-alone article, and because other arguments may have some merit, even if some evidence looks flimsy. I won't vote delete because... this article needs cleanup for those who oppose deletion or merger. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, i would just like to comment that the reason this page was created was because there is too much relevant information regarding her personal life. Status created this article so that it wouldn't get out of hand. Only the extremely important things (marriages, divorces, children, notable relationship) has been actually summed up in the article. If we went to merge this again with her main article, it would be much too long and completely stupid. I don't know if you know this, but lawsuits, background information, relationships, marriages, children, religion, etc all are very relevant, especially for
  Jar 08:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• At least this situation is different from murders of Jennifer Hudson's Chicago family, which lacks independent notability. Speaking of religion, I don't see substantial information about it in the main page and this subpage. Maybe you haven't looked at history log, have you? --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. Unfortunately i have been non-active on wiki for a few days and i failed to see that the section is no longer there. However, from what i remember it was there and religion is extremely important... so you pick out the tiny wrong in what i have said and address that rather then all my other points? Hmm... −
  Jar 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The personal life should be an integral part of the bio. Even if all this is considered encyclopedic, it would still fit into the main article. And I consider the additional detail here about as non-encyclopedic as one can get. The detailed gossip and quotes about her relationships is tabloid material, and the relevant principle is NOT FANSITE. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The section of Personal life of Jennifer Lopez are 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and 4 Media influence. None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article. There never was is enough text in a given subtopic in in the Jennifer Lopez article to merit its own article. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Summary style. Editing requires making hard choices about what gets into and what stays out of an article. Allowing multiple Jennifer Lopez articles sidesteps that process. Wikipedia works on consensus, not avoiding consensus building. If you want 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence section coverage on Jennifer Lopez, you're going to need to come to a consensus on the Jennifer Lopez article talk page to add that to the Jennifer Lopez article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your argument is that no biography should span more than one article? Your statement that "None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article." is because it was split-off without summary paragraphs being retained for the overall content. Which can and should be fixed. And in any event, you and DGG above you are really calling for selective merger, not deletion, as you both think this should be trimmed and integrated back into the main article. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing any useful information in the 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' article that already isn't in the 'Jennifer Lopez' article. The consensus does not exist to add 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence sections into the Jennifer Lopez article, so it can't be "fixed". 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' is the cutting room floor content that gets left behind as top importance articles improve to B-class. Even if enquiring minds want to know, it benefits the encyclopedia to have editors make the tough editorial decisions on what gets in and what stays out of the article so that it can move up in class. The topic coverage only needs to be a representative survey of the relevant literature and the article need only stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. One group of editors external to the article forcing content into the article over the objections of another group of editors via spin-in isn't the spinoff discussed in Wikipedia:Summary style. The groups should come together on the article talk page and make editorial decisions on consensus outcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The consensus does not exist to add..." There's no such consensus against and never has been, nor do you need a demonstrated consensus prior to adding content to an article. Regardless, this article was split off from the main article by User:Status in the first place, not as a prelude to deleting it, but because of its size; it was a split off, not a "spin in" as you seem to think. So none of your comment makes sense in light of the actual edit history here, nor in light even of many of the deletion comments here, which say this belongs back in the main article. postdlf (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and any other "Personal life of ..." article fork. That's a terrible idea and precedent. Biographies should include all aspects of the lives of the subjects: the personal, the professional, the artistic, the financial, etc., since these subjects are often intertwined. Would you take Yoko Ono out of the John Lennon article? Bill Clinton out of the Hillary Clinton article? Joe DiMaggio out of the Marilyn Monroe article? It's absurd. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with any split-off article, there should be a summary paragraph on her personal life in the main bio, which can easily be fixed by adding one. Deleting this will not accomplish that, and maintaining this as a stand-alone article does not interfere with that. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current main article already seems to have the important parts of her personal life integrated into the chronology – I see mentions of Combs, Judd, Affleck, and Anthony, for example, as well as the "Bennifer" expression, the most expensive celebrity photo ever of the twins, and so forth. That's the best solution of all and the one I use in all the biographies that I'm the main author of. Then there's no need for either a "Personal life" section or a "Personal life of ..." subarticle. As for the added detail that the subarticle provides, merge it back into the main article chronology if it's really necessary, but some of it (such as the lengthy quotes, or the exact weight and time of birth of the twins) seems unnecessary to be anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, Category:Personal relationships by individual already has 10 articles in it, including two that are GA (on McCartney and Jackson). I hadn't realized there were any. So maybe this ship has already sailed ... Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was already decided last year. Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Jennifer Lopez, but after a significant trimming of that article and this article have been performed. Remember: we are a tertiary source, and should be summarizing information. I can believe there's certainly enough media attention on her to generate more than 180k of text, but this is not summarizing, it's a timeline. There is a lot of excess information. There's a lot of information that can be offloaded to her albums and other media for example. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess of information? Please show me what information is fluff. Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not fluff, it's just excessive and duplicative. Trying to read through the chronological biography is getting a combination of her personal life and how her works were received, which should be on the actual album/movie pages, not this page, at least in the bio section. That's extremely awkward to make any sense of. Her varied professional entertainer aspects seem to beg this article to break out her musical aspects to a single section, her actress parts to another, etc., and leaving just bare personal life details (and how/when they intersect with her career milestones to get a sense of timing). The bio should be less a timeline and more a capture of broad strokes of her career. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and burn with fire. Wikipedia is not the tabloids. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:BLPGOSSIP. Having a separate article for this subject matter gives it undue weight. The article length concerns of the main article can be addressed by splitting out other content, e.g. Career of Jennifer Lopez, List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez, etc. as recently suggested by George Ho. -- Trevj (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Would you suggest something like
    Paul McCartney's musical career (but for both acting and music career)? Artistry could also be included in there. I think basically, this article needs to stay as it is for the time being until it be decided on what to do. Then we can deal with anything else. Statυs (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per DGG and nom. This is also classic fancruft, not worthy of an encyclopedia, soucred mostly by People magazine and the like. If someone will do the work, a smerger is also acceptable to me, per Masem and contra The Bushranger. TMI, as my students would say. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as acceptable content fork. I'm not going to check the
  WP:SOURCES
  but they seem sufficient.

• WP:UNDUE#Point of view forks
  states: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. ...This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
• The
  WP:CONTENTFORKING
  guideline states: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. ...This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
• The
  WP:SPINOFF
  states: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. ...Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. ...Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation"

Essentially, the notability is already accrued to Lopez, and this is a spinoff of the already-notable Jennifer Lopez article. If I wanted to learn about Lopez, I would be glad for this material to be offloaded from the main article. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on principle as a content fork of the main article, which should cover this in the context of Lopez' whole life/works. Having this as a standalone perhaps risks creasing a magnet for
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - this is clearly not a content Fork. It does not present a new point of view. Just a plit of the article across multiple pages. OracleB (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I don't think that anyone is disputing that this is a content fork. What we're here to debate is a) whether the scope of this article is worthy enough to sustain this division and b) whether the subject matter has already been sufficently surmised in the parent article. SplashScreen (talk) 18:02, 21 June 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.

Stewart Kosoy

Stewart Kosoy (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 "video game industry professional". Appears sockpuppetry has been going on. In an old version, only two of the five refs actually mention Kosoy and one of the refs is an interview. I removed a Moby games ref as Moby refs are unreliable. Current revision has only one non ref. There is no reliable and independent references that go into detail about Kosoy and very little mention anything at all. Prod was contested. Here is the last version before SPAs/sockpuppets went to town Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I tried to find sources about this guy, and while I found bits here and there that mentioned his name, I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of him. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:

• If this ends up deleted, it'll probably be time to also look at William Todd Tribell and Digital Capital Corporation.
• I'm not sure who you're referring to as "SPAs/sockpuppets"; I dearly hope that I'm not included! So far as I can tell, the only new COI editor that's shown up to add fluff to this article is Derek3422 (talk · contribs).
  • Are you planning on filing an SPI case? If so, the other
    SPA's I've run into across these three articles are Rasteryze (talk · contribs), Wttribell (talk · contribs), NatashaBrun (talk · contribs), and Natasorokina (talk · contribs
    ).
• IMO, the version of the page as you AFD'd it was a travesty. I've merged the better version back in (keeping the AFD, of course), so that uninvolved editors can see that the article has had some references. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave the version that had the refs, but because with all the SPAs running around, I didn't know what is good and bad to do a restore with. However, I think you made the right call. User:Danish pasty is a SPA, but as you said, didn't add fluff. I totally think you are a SPA... Special Person Always. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person (Kosoy) has made significant contributions to the video game industry for decades and is well known by many of the bigget executives in that industry. according to wikipedia, "As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject." There is at least one reliable source. There is no funnny business going on here - that person is exactly who it says him to be. I may not have done a great job writing the article, no doubt there - it can be cleaned up with some assistance. But the subject of the article is without question LEGIT! Rasteryze (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* The news tab above this discussion shows an article in Bloomberg Business week confirms that Kosoy was indeed an officer at Sega. That wasn’t cited in Kosoy’s article but should be if the following doesnt apply.

* In the reference that BGWHITE said was an interview, the journalist clearly introduces Kosoy (before the interview) as having worked for GT interactive, MGM and Sega as was correctly cited in the original article and was obviously familiar with Kosoy’s reputation as the introduction indicates with more about Battlefield and Digital Illusions, etc. The citation in the Wikipedia article was not referring to the interview, but to the reported introduction. This article was written by a well known senior editor of one of the industry’s biggest news sources.

* Other references showing Kosoy and ISM were hosting a charity poker tournament raising money for childrens charity was completely deleted. Dorismith unilaterally determined that as “not important”, deleted it and in a later edit (06:32, 30 May 2012‎ ) indicated that another users version “sucked”. By the rules of Wikipedia, this article should not be deleted because one or two editors simply does not feel that it is not worthy or because they think the work “sucked”. There are verifiable documented sources on the subject of this article, even the deleted charity mention, and could be many others me and other people have yet to find like many wikipedia articles. I personally dont think Mary Kay Ash is noteworthy, but probalby thousands of ladies do. I still wouldnt delete her article.

* The article that was edited by Danish pasty at 12:37, 29 May 2012 is certainly cleaner than my original version, except for the removal of the charity, which in my opinion is a noteworthy mention of the subject. It would be good starting place for the article to grow.Rasteryze (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Just to clarify some of User:Rasteryze's statements above:
  • I have no problem with User:Danish pasty's version, as his edits to my previous version were fairly minor. It was User:Derek3422 (a friend of Kosoy's) who made a mess of things, as I said on his talk page.
  • Yes, I believe that these edits resulted in a version that sucked. Note that almost all the references were removed—for instance, [4] does not actually create a ref out of thin air. The only two remaining refs don't display, because the {{
    WP:MOSTITLE
    , were reverted.
  • My issue with the charitable work is that the source provided doesn't support the claim that's made. For instance, the claim was made that "Kosoy organized a charity event hosted by his agency together with Starlight Children's Foundation…" The source, though, just says that ISM organized the event and that Kosoy made a statement on behalf of ISM—that is, while Kosoy worked for ISM, it's never stated that Kosoy himself worked on the tournament. Additionally, Starlight isn't listed as hosting or organizing the event; they're just the recipients of the money raised. Consequently, I had no problems cutting that paragraph, as there wasn't much left once everything unsourced was cut.
  • You state above that I wrote that something was "not important", but I cannot find anywhere I used that phrase. Diffs, please?

Let's keep this about the article content versus attacking editors and

WP:OSE, shall we? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]