Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Not the usual number of !votes for a snow, yes, but given the importance of the title involved, notability is established to the point Phil is ordering long jammies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven

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

Not notable. Awards are minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 12 August 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) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - They're not some no-name developer, they're developing a game in a multi-million dollar selling franchise, (LittleBigPlanet Vita) and the company's founders were originally from Rockstar Games, a major video game developer/publisher. There's sources in the article, and they're focused on the company, not the game series. I'm leaning towards keep unless a better rationale is presented... Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are developing a big game for the new PSP Vita. That is enough for a keep for me. --Mr. Mario (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per others. They are notable due to their development of a high profile game. - X201 (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are developing LittleBigPlanet for the Sony PS Vita; a multi-million selling series with a massive community. They are also signed exclusively with Sony, so are likely to be working on another one of their large IPs after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deikin Karura (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 August 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} 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D4 Stores

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There is some coverage to be found view GNews, but it doesn't quite add up to in-depth coverage. However, given what is available through GNews, I'll easily believe that there is in-depth coverage to be found somewhere. So perhaps a local inhabitant with better access can tip the scale. -- BenTels (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - A shop in a hotel, no notability whatsoever. The hotel (Ballsbridge hotel) that this store is in, doesn't even have an article. Snappy (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of this being more than a run-of-the-mill shop. Any media attention appears to have been inherited from the owner's surname being well-known in the Irish retail sector than intrinsic notability. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's launch attracted some attention here. It apparently violated local zoning requirements. I see no evidence of the multiple significant coverage needed, and aside from being covered at launch, it has not attracted sustained notice. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 16 August 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville Pie Company

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It's not exactly an avalanche, but there is some coverage on GNews. Clearly derived from the exposure on the Oprah Show, but it's not nothing... Although I could, in truth, just as easily live with a redirect to Oprah's Favorite Things#2010. -- BenTels (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that coverage make it notable? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of articles about the company. True, they are introduced as the company that was mentioned on Oprah, but they are about the company. It's borderline WP:GNG though. -- BenTels (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 14 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Pony Media

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

Not notable yet. Awards seem fairly minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've added a reference from the Glasgow Herald to the article they are also briefly mentioned in a 2008 article in The Scotsman. And a production can be found in the 48 hour film database (though under a similar but different title from the one given in the article). However these and the level of the awards do not seem sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources provided and available in web searches show a clear lack of notability. This entry seems to exist primarily as a promotional page for a mostly-virtual production company that is nowhere near close to making it yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and while there is one !vote to redirect and two to Merge and redirect, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 LT38

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

~~Unsourced for over a year - not useful. PamD 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw: Sources have now been found and added which indicate notability, previously totally lacking. Apologies for sloppy wording of nomination: "No apparent notability" would have been better. PamD 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Well, it is categorized as a potentially hazardous asteroid (PHA) that will have a close encounter in 2037.[1][2] It's also an early candidate target for a NEO mission.[3] But, for now at least, it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I'd redirect it per WP:NASTRO, but I'm not sure what to suggest as a target since it doesn't have a minor planet number. There is a Orion Asteroid Mission redirect. Maybe we need a dedicated NEO mission article where we can list the potential targets? Regards, RJH (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. -- BenTels (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The nominator's statements are straight out of arguments to avoid: WP:RUBBISH/WP:NEGLECT and WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was using total unsourcedness as a surrogate indicator of lack of notability. PamD 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and while there is one Redirect and one Merge and redirect !vote, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 OD20

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

~~Unsourced for over a year - not useful. PamD 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: article has now been sourced and now indicates the encyclopedic value of the topic. Apologies for poor choice of words when nominating: "No evidence of notability" would have been more appropriate. PamD 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With a quick google search I found a few references for this article and some more information. I think the fact that it will pass so close to the earth makes it notable and there are likely to be more mainstream mentions of it next year when it makes its next pass, as was seen earlier this year with 2002 AM31. Sarahj2107 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – There are 1325 known PHAs [4] out of potentially as many as 6,200,[5] which does not make it a very exclusive list. About the only published content I could find were a couple of Minor Planet circulars, neither of which had any content I could access. (Is zapaday a reliable source? Shrug.) For now, suggest a redirect to List of minor planets/163301–163400 per WP:NASTHELP. The minor planet number is 163364. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is redirected, List of minor planets/163301–163400 should be the target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - both Speedy close as the nominator does not make a policy-based argument for deletion. Indeed, both the nominator's statements are straight out of arguments to avoid: WP:RUBBISH/WP:NEGLECT and WP:USELESS. And a keep in the normal fashion as well per the added references. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was using total unsourcedness as a surrogate indicator of lack of notability. I am glad to see that an editor has now found and added references, and expanded the article. PamD 19:28, 13 August 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) 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Montalban

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

It is not clear that this person exists. This is a possible hoax or urban legend. Entirely unreferenced, and no references can be found outside of Wikipedia mirrors. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search for references for this person found nothing and the article doesn't really say anything about him anyway, it's all about this mysterious story that doesn't seem to exist either. If this isn't a hoax it's a good imitation. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per Ubelowme, plus the movie doesn't generate non-Wikipedia hits either. Seems like a hoax. -- BenTels (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another hoax. Google searches for anyone with as distinctive a name as this would be productive, especially in connection with the list of luminaries that the hoax implies were interested in his work. Likewise, the title of the supposed novel is unique, since "Dudas Gravas" means "Gravel Dreams" in Spanish (and thus suggests the creator of this hoax doesn't speak the language). But that's also unproductive as a search term. Sadly, as with too many of these hoaxes, there's just a tiny bit of real information intended to lead readers astray. There really is a Scottish film student named Sandy Johnson, who really was the director of a 1980 short film Never Say Die! which really was presented at the 24th Regus London Film Festival. It's about a black comedy about a dying man in 1940s Glasgow, and is most certainly not an adaptation of a Peruvian gothic noir novel. The character in that film had a month to live; this hoax article deserves far less than that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original author of this article seems to be the Sandy Johnson mentioned above by Squeamish Ossifrage. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:49, 18 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Willy's Surf Shack

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's a "cult icon" it's one that no one has seen fit to mention in any reliable source I could find. There's a few blogs and entries in listings, etc. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- BenTels (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, nor was I able to find any indication it is iconic in any way. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 16 August 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} 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodrome Festival

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

I found no coverage of this music festival. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to believe for one second that a festival that had Metallica, RHCP and The Pixies playing in the same year would have ZERO coverage in the media. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then try to find some. SL93 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Keep First off, it doesn't fail WP:N. It's clearly notable, it just needed sources. Which it has now. Lugnuts (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also requires significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Wolfie. It should be tagged for improvement, as it is clearly notable. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG is the requirement to show it's notable. It is not clearly notable and I see no reason to think it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sufficient reliable sources on GNews. Also in German. -- BenTels (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show some that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think so, yes. Couple from the first page on GNews:
- Traurige Äuglein inmitten des Sturms -- Coverage in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard about the 2004 edition.
- Aerodrome-Festival: Staus um Wiener Neustadt erwartet -- Der Standard, during the run up to the 2005 edition (Rammstein playing, expected traffic problems)
- "Aerodrome"-Festival am 10. und 11. Juni in Wiener Neustadt -- OTS about the 2004 edition.
- Na Aerodrome festivalu 2005 tudi ljubljanska zasedba Backstage -- Slovenian coverage, 2005 edition. Can't read it myself though. -- BenTels (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This pretty much seals it. Nice work. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, a trivial mention, a traffic advisory and a press release. That leaves the derstandard.at article Traurige Äuglein inmitten des Sturms by Karl Fluch, which is the best source identified so far. Is it enough coverage to write an article about the subject though? It reviews performances by some of the very notable bands that performed that year, but has little to say about the festival itself. Contrast this with WP:EFFECT: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Is there any indication that this festival is of lasting significance? VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it enough coverage to write an article about the subject though?" Yes. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 article in Der Standard is not a traffic advisory but an article covering the traffic and security precautions being taken to handle the expected crowds at the festival due to the performance by Rammstein. The OTS-article is not a press release, but coverage in the culture section of APA, an Austrian news agency (like Reuters or AP). Please do not misrepresent the contents of sources. -- BenTels (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think traffic precautions is something we should mention in the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my characterizations of the articles, with the caveat that I am relying on machine translations which of course can be inaccurate. The Der Standard article is in the traffic section of the website, and I do not see where it mentions "security precautions." The OTS article does not list an author and includes the disclaimer "OTS-Originaltext Presseaussendung unter ausschließlicher inhaltlicher Verantwortung des Aussenders" (ots.at, 7 June 2004). What do you interpret this to mean, other than identifying this specific article from the news service as a press release? Please do not misrepresent the contents of sources. Lugnuts, I followed the question you quoted with my reasoning as to why I did not consider the sources presented to represent significant coverage of the actual subject. Without reasoning behind your opinions, simple contradiction and repetition do not advance the discussion. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you disagree instead? VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. The point is that it is coverage related to the event and VQuakr was trying to pretend that it is not. But since you ask: we are talking about a festival that was expecting 80.000 visitors for the 2005 editions, large enough that the security and traffic measures taken to accomodate it affected the city enough that it was reported in the national press. So do I think that is significant? Yes, I do. -- BenTels (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If these aren't potential sources then they don't help meet GNG, because they don't show there is significant coverage in reliable sources to discuss the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't potential sources. They're outright sources. -- BenTels (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to VQuakr: and I do not see where it mentions "security precautions." --> "Das Sicherheitskonzept für das Festival stehe ebenfalls schon, so Plotnitzer."

What do you interpret this to mean, other than identifying this specific article from the news service as a press release? --> Do you know how a news agency works? They release basic line coverage which other news media are allowed to copy and report upon. I.e. newspapers and television news and so on are allowed to pick up this article and broadcast it with attribution to the APA. How they use the article beyond the pure contents of the text is their responsibility, so if they offend somebody and get sued it's their problem. That's what that line says. -- BenTels (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using a more civil tone. Yes, rereading the last two sentences of the traffic report I see what you are referring to. Definitely not an example of significant coverage though. As for the ots.at article, if you believe this is not a primary source being distributed by the newswire, then who is the author? VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of those sources show significant coverage. Bravewords is a questionable source and the "coverage" is 2 sentences, one of which is a list of who is scheduled. Blabbermouth, another source that would likely fail RS, devotes a single paragraph to the event (yet manages to get used 6 times as a source). Finally Ultimate Guitar, another likely RS failure, devoted a small paragraph that mainly says "it's happening". Not seeing the significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable independent sources as required per WP:GNG; nothing seems forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and notability is not inherited. The existing article is just a list of bands, and the sources (if considered reliable) verify existence but to not cover the topic in sufficient depth to verifiably improve the article per WP:GNG. The German article contains only primary sources, so no help there. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that could be used to improve the article by providing content. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like standard newspaper coverage of a single upcoming event; Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Considering the lack of follow up the reasoning of WP:10 year test applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already replied regarding the 4 sources listed above when you posted this request, so I obviously had already looked above, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay and not policy, so it is irrelevant. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that it was a policy, I am saying the reasoning applies: we don't have any real sign of notability besides some possibly unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"possibly unreliable sources" Well they either are reliable or they aren't. Which is it? Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—notability requires significant coverage in sources. Currently I'm not seeing the significant coverage, and trivial mentions don't cut it. Till 02:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All those links via Google News cut's it. Look above. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Cuts. Till 09:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've looked through the sources, including those in German and Slovenian, and failed to find any substantial coverage. Coverage is terse and tangetial, at best, and confined mostly to unreliable sources. Concert announcements do not add much to notability, even in mainstream newspapers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:58, 19 August 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 to delete this material. There is substantial and well-argued support for a merge, and indeed there is very nearly a consensus for it, but I don't think we're quite there. Discussion about the possible merge can continue on the article's talk page until consensus about it is reached. What this AfD has found is that this article title should not become a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Mark Clayton (politician)

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

Only claim to notability is having embarrassed the Tennessee Democratic Party by winning the state Democratic primary. This is a WP:ONEEVENT situation, not something that merits a full-scale encyclopedia biography. For background, it took only 25 petition signatures to get on the primary ballot in Tennessee; the party did not have any approval over the candidates who filed; and the state has an open primary in which voting was heavy on the Republican side this year. This guy won the primary by accident; he will lose by a landslide in November, and no good purpose is served by discussing his biography and political views in an article. Article topic can be merged into Tennessee Democratic Party. Orlady (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect (note unlikely search term) to United States Senate election in Tennessee, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to United States Senate election in Tennessee, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN. Not sure about the redirect, but an entry for him will need to be maintained at the Mark Clayton dab page.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This guy is getting a lot of negative attention at the moment, and I know that inclines people to delete sometimes, but he is still the candidate of a leading party for Tennessee's Senate seat. He's certainly unlikely to win, but that's true of much less fringe-y candidates in certain constituencies. I urge that we consider Clayton's notability under GNG, BIO, and POLITICIAN, without letting the tenor of the coverage bias us. We may yet decide that the coverage is flash-in-the-pan. I'm not voting at present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My view on this is not because of any concern about negative (or positive) coverage; it's because the usual practice here has been cover unelected candidates, if they are otherwise non-notable, in the article about the particular election. See WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." I suspect that quite a bit of content about Clayton and his campaign and positions could end up being used in that article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup yup. My comment was partly pre-emptive. Not saying he's notable - just that if you would think he was notable if the coverage was positive... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already created (but hid for now) the proper link at 'Mark Clayton (disambiguation). That is:

Mark Clayton, Democratic Party candidate for the United States Senate election in Tennessee, 2012

I happen to love the idea of 'common WP:OUTCOMES', and I happen to agree with the spirit of WP:POLOUTCOMES which rightly guards against hundreds of new articles each year for long-short candidates of very temporary notability. But I'd like to see a little common-sense injected there, per 2010 Alvin Greene vs 1988 Robert R. McMillan (yeah, McMillan is listed there in that section). The lots of easy headlines about the largely-laughable Greene candidacy = article, while McMillan is a decorated Korea War vet, executive of Avon Products, 14-year co-host of Face Off on PBS, the only non-physician on the AMA board, the chairman of the federal Panama Canal Commission, AND a major-party-nominee for U. S. Senate. There's not a doubt that a simple article on the boring McMillan would survive on notability grounds, but who cares to create it if you have to immediately dig for enough sources to immediately satisfy WP:SIGCOV and fend off the WP:WHACAMOLE brigade? Again, the spirit of WP:POLOUTCOMES is well-intentioned, but its seeming threshold blocks too many articles on actually-notable candidates who merely lack cheerleading editors with the wherewithal to source them from the get-go. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or adopt new policy. Full disclosure: My opinion is that the two major party nominees for general election to president, state governor, and United States senator should automatically be assumed notable, and I proposed that at the Village Pump (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:CANDIDATE). That major party "assumed notable" proposal (which I nicknamed WP:CANDIDATE) is absolutely not the policy right now, but it's probably the only way a nobody like this Mark Clayton could survive AfD PRODding. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This could be a delete vote for me; however, depending on the results of the election this article could be kept. As such, I would recommend merging it to Tennessee Senate Elections for the time being. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is vanishingly little chance of this guy winning, although some right-wing Republicans have suggested that they may vote for him because he's more conservative than Bob Corker. --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to the article about the election (United States Senate election in Tennessee, 2012) is the right solution. I failed to find that article when I was starting this AfD -- possibly because it wasn't linked in the article about Clayton. --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously notable. He won the primary election, the Dem party disavows, etc. Plenty of coverage of him and the election. The argument that the elected nominee for U.S. senate from a major party isn't notable seems absurd. How does deleting this article improve the encyclopedia or serve its readers who want to know more about this major party candidate for the U.S. Senate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded and updated the article from the ample coverage this individual has recieved in reliable independent sources (the core basis for establishing notability). As he received tens of thousand of votes in a previous (2008) Senate primary candidacy, and given the extent of the ongoing coverage and controversies related to his candidacy (including a Federal lawsuit alleging fraud) claims of BLP-1E are rather preposterous. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. I was torn on this one, because he really did get a flurry of nationwide attention when he (accidentally?) won the Democratic primary. Other than that, however, he has not been notable, so redirecting to the relevant election per usual practice is the way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 19 August 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. per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, too. SarahStierch (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ingram

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

Despite the recent addition of new sources, the article still fails WP:BIO without significant secondary sources covering the subject specifically except for an obituary. TM 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough independent secondary coverage. He may be notable to alumni of the school, but not enough for an article on WP. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His obituary appeared in The Times, a good independent indication of notability, and he is extensively mentioned in the obituary of Michael Gover in The Independent, two of the UK's leading national newspapers, was well as being mentioned in an encyclopedia and other books. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I couldn't figure out because the Times site is so Olympic heavy now is whether it was a staff obit or a paid obit. If the former then he probably passes the bar for Keep. If the latter then I see it as borderline. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately The Times is a subscription site so the link only works if you subscribe. Do you think it is best to remove such links? It is a proper "staff" obituary, not a paid obituary, for information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link is still helpful. There is a Subscription Required tag that could be put on it. Given that he has had a staff obit in the Times, I think it's a definite Keep -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry, but one obituary does not a notable subject make. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two independent newspaper obituaries (The Times and The Oxford Times) as well as book references, for information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not everyone with obits in independent sources are notable. I don't care if this guy has ten obits in various big newspapers. As the nom asked, what other sources are there? What accomplishments were covered by independent sources? Why is he notable? Still a delete. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but a school headmaster - even a long-serving headmaster of a leading school - is not notable, and he doesn't seem to have done anything else to gain notability. Obituaries are nice (what do you bet they were written by nostalgic alumni of his school?), but Wikipedia is not for memorials. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 19 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Condariuc

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Moldovan National Division is not listed at WP:FPL. However, in the absence of reliable source confirming the league as fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:NFOOTY per nom. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian sentiment in the West

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

This page contains a large quantity of synthesis (inferring anti-Christian sentiment on the basis of a line in Kill Bill spoken in the context of Japanese martial arts is a level of hyper-sensitivity I don't think I've yet seen. Saying that a movie is anti-Christian because someone uses the phrase "abs like Jesus"? A source would be nice...).

There's already an existing article on Anti-Christian sentiment, and I'm not sure this is adding anything that's new or well-sourced.

The sourcing that's good has mostly been copied and pasted from Anti-Christian sentiment and bolstered with some really ropey sources like TVTropes (a wiki) and Search Engine Roundtable (basically a blog post) etc.

If there is something specifically to be discussed about anti-Christian sentiment in the West, surely there's some actual good sources on the topic? Academic, neutral, well-considered sources that deal with the topic seriously rather than a hodgepodge of news sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever good content there is to Anti-Christian sentiment. Unnecessary content fork. St Anselm (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough material here to sustain a separate article; most of it doesn't actually belong, whether "debated" or "potential" opinions of anti-Christianity, trivial pop culture references simply assumed by the writer to be anti-Christian, or advocacy of secularism/failure to privilege Christianity over other religions as some politically active Christians feel it deserves. In other circumstances, I might suggest a very very selective merge to anti-Christian sentiment, but the sourcing is so extremely poor that it isn't worth it. (the metal music stuff is, IIRC, already in the article) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve -- Anti-Christian sentiment is a worldwide article and mostly deals with serious persecution in the regions where theree is an interface between Christianity and other dominant religions, particularly Islam. The article is certainly a poor one, but that can be remedied. It present it is too Catholic-centred, at least in the lead. Some pruning of irrelevant material may also be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom (2009), which suffered from inherent synthesising and hyper-sensitivity. What's next, Class warfare against the rich in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) listing every occasion someone wanted to preserve Medicare? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's plenty of room to expand the regular Anti-Christian Sentiment article, and the claims here are hilarious. Google is not responsible for the content of their search results. The Kill Bill reference is uncited and is a reference to a specific koan. There is virtually nothing in this article worth saving. eldamorie (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first, I thought the article could be saved, and then I started going down the page. The article is beyond saving, and is just an unnecessary content fork at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Don't need yet another article on this topic to keep up with with redundant information. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here worth keeping or merging. Maybe if the article was retitled Christian paranoia in the West ... --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 19 August 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 without prejudice against recreation from scratch. Having verified the various arguments and allegations below by reading the article itself, I've drawn the following summary of the AfD:

"Bicycle shaped object", or "BSO", is a widely used jargon among Australian and British cycling enthusiasts to describe poorly manufactured or assembled bicycles. As a topic, it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion.
The current content of the article is, however, largely unencyclopedic. Its style of writing is opinionated and contains much original research.
The current form of the article also muddled up BSO with "flat-pack bike" and "department store bike". The latter two concepts have much overlap with BSO, yet are different concepts. As a result, the article became a jumbled rant against low-quality bicycle assembly in general.
There is much debate about the reliability of the sources. Most of them were found to be reliable, given the local and specialist nature of this topic.

In conclusion, my observation is that despite the clear split the between keep and delete opinions, two rough consensuses have arisen from this debate: the concept is notable, but the article in its current form is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Therefore I'm deleting this article without prejudice against a rewrite from scratch. Interested editors are welcome to ask me for a copy of the source text or to restore the page history as a userspace draft; however, they should be reminded that I don't think there's much on the page that will be useful other than the citations. Der yck C. 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Shaped Object

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

The article is a POV fork, where a jocular, disparaging article title was chosen in order to create a fork where an entire article can be filled with criticism of the subject, and contrary opinions are by definition off-topic. The basis is that some pundits think that very low-end bicycles are not good enough to be called "true" bicycles and therefore are pale imitations, i.e. "Bicycle Shaped Objects" (BSOs). Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TL:DR — To me it's obvious that this POV fork should be deleted, but this has been discussed at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object and Talk:Bicycle#Suggested Merge from Bicycle Shaped Object, so I have some replies to previous arguments. Apologies for the tl;dr comment.
The fact that the term "bicycle shaped object" is supposed to be funny is a clue as to how unencyclopedic this is. Similar humorous attack pages might be Miserable failure or Barack Osama (sic). Note that Lemon (automobile) can refer to both low end and high end cars; it's not about cost cutting so much as warranty, or lack thereof. Some have argued that the term "bicycle shaped object" has become common, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the fact that a term is common does not in of itself make it an encyclopedic subject.
Any sufficiently large category of product is going to have high end and low end offerings, and inevitably some pundits will argue that the products at the extreme low end are a poor value. If Wikipedia were a consumer shopping guide (it's not) then there would be a place for this type of consumer advice. But we don't fork off ultra cheap PCs (like eMachines) or ultra cheap cars (like Yugo (car)) and write separate articles filled with nothing but invective against them. Value (economics) is a far too complex subject to allow such a POV fork.
There are multiple sources that use BSO.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] These sources are all op-ed pieces, blogs and personal essays or idiosyncratic consumer how-to advice; none are truly objective journalism or scholarship. For example, none attempt to treat the sellers and manufacturers of these supposedly evil bicycles fairly by asking them to comment and give their side of the story. The sources are also rather incoherent as to what they're really talking about. The Guardian's Matt Seaton, for example, mostly seems to be saying ultra-cheap bicycles are defective, but he confounds that with Dumping (pricing policy), meaning that the bicycles are actually equal in quality to higher priced goods, but are sold at below market value as an unfair trade practice. What's the real subject here? Dumping or "bicycles" that aren't really good enough to be called bicycles?
Why are all the sources noted in Bicycle Shaped Object and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object from the UK and Australia? If this is a UK-only issue, it should be discussed on a page related to the UK and/or the Commonwealth of Nations. Note that in the US, Consumer Reports has rated the Schwinn Midmoor as a best buy ([13], paywall). At $250, it's at essentially the same price, £150, which the UK sources say is an unacceptably shoddy bicycle. Consumer Reports does say "Inexpensive bikes selling for less than $200 from brands such as Huffy, Mongoose, Roadmaster, and Schwinn may seem like good deals, but we advise spending $300 or more, if your budget allows. [...] Adults should consider inexpensive bikes from a department store only for the most casual use, [...] You might want a mass-market bike for kids who will outgrow a bike quickly or handle it roughly." (Emphasis mine.) Consumer Reports is saying that objectively, ultra-cheap bikes might be OK for some buyers, and so, some so-called "bicycle shaped objects" are in fact real bicycles, for some buyers. Just like an ultra-cheap PC might be good enough for some computer users, even though power users are likely to scoff. You're far into the realm of personal opinion and taste here; not encyclopedic subjects.
At Talk:Bicycle#Suggested Merge from Bicycle Shaped Object some editors support a merge to Bicycle, but doing so would violate Wikipedia:Systemic bias; the supposed evils of BSOs are only applicable in the context of specific wealthy countries like the UK. There isn't one sentence of objective, encyclopedic text in Bicycle Shaped Object that belongs in any article, so there is nothing to salvage and merge anywhere. The sources might be re-used as raw material to write something encyclopedic in another article, but keeping this article isn't necessary in order to do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator's reasons. It’s unbalanced and purely negative. Most products have low end prices and you get what you pay for, there is nothing more notable about low end bicycles than any other cheap product. As someone who lives in the UK I can say I have never hear the term here before, if it’s used here it is likely an informal humorous term used by specific groups. Also £150 is a very reasonable price for a bike, I have bought good quality ones for much less. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also agree that it's very unencylopedic. I have difficulty imagining it seriously improving to have a neutral tone with third-party references, etc. There's nothing really salvageable, so its best to delete it entirely. I had no special interest in the article, I was just passing through with AWB. • Jesse V.^(talk) 22:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - stick a WP:POVFORK in it, this article's done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I stated in the previous AFD for this article, this article is pretty much just someone's personal essay about what could possibly be wrong about cheap bikes. Even if there are reliable sources that use the term, and the nominator makes a strong case as to why there are not, the article in question does not actually talk about the term itself at all in any sort of meaningful way, and thus the entire article would have to be rewritten from the ground up. Rorshacma (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no change from the 1st AfD in March, except that a different group of editors have turned up at the AfD. (Mind you, thanks to Dennis for notifying me - I wasn't close enough that notification was required or expected, and unsurprisingly I differ in my view from his, so his even-handedness here is commendable.)

This term is not a content fork. It's a disparaging term in the cycling community, used to describe poor quality bikes. Much as petrolheads describe an unfavoured engine as a "boat anchor". It's not an everyday term by non-cyclists, but cyclists keen enough to be clubbies or part of an on-line group will likely recognise it.

Is this term sourced to meet WP:N? That's the only real question here, as regards deletion.

As to definitions, then I'd expect £150 to buy a really good quality kids bike for my little nephew's age (although only the likes of Edinburgh Bicycle sell them), a poor bike for my older son at this popular price point, and an evil pile o'junk as an adult bike. You can make a good simple bike for this money, but the market instead demands all the bells and whistles (particularly regarding suspension) and you can't make a good complex bike for this money. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AD sums up the entire article in one sentence. "It's a disparaging term in the cycling community, used to describe poor quality bikes." In other words, it's a bit of jargon with a variety of interpretations (which is why this "article" is a set of heuristics rather than a description of a subject) used in a particular community as shorthand for a pretty basic concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is especially not a dictionary of jargon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This largely appears to be an opinion piece rather than something of encyclopaedic value. The comparison above to boat anchor is a poor one - the wikipedia article just talks about anchors for boats, not the humorous meaning for petrolheads. This is not a precedent for keeping this article. ChrisUK (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I !voted keep at the previous AfD back in March, but may form a different opinion now - anyway thanks for the notification, Dennis Bratland.) This year's "Bicycle Show and Shine" at the Nevada Museum of Art includes the category "Best Bike Shaped Object". The cited Watchdog report is referred to in the context of this term at [14] (but then it was produced with the help of that site's editor-in-chief). -- Trevj (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have several articles about similar topics such as lemon (automobile), inferior good and jalopy. I suspect that we might make something of the topic as cheap bicycles and trade wars have been around for some time. For example, see Peddling Bicycles to America where we see the British scorning imports as "gaspipe machines". Warden (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BSOs are pretty much the antithesis of inferior goods. An inferior good is what they claim to be, a cheap product that is still adequate for the task. The trouble with BSOs is that they're almost all just not fit for purpose and in many cases they're also trying to up-sell themselves as something they're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheap and generally-unfit-for-purpose variant of subject X" is not established to be a class of subject which it is possible to cover in an encyclopedic manner. Lemon (automobile) is an exception to this because there has been significant cultural impact from that subject (lemon law, and even more significantly The Market for Lemons). That impact is absent here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're redefining minimal notabilty as requiring a change to the law and a book too? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't necessarily fail notability, though the sources are extremely weak and personal rather than objective. The wild charges of false advertising and proffering unsafe, defective transport would be quite serious if they were officially prosecuted. Instead we have breathless accusations on blogs and newspaper opinion columns, i.e. WP:FRINGE. Why has no seller been charged?

But the cause for deletion is not primarily notability so much as that it violates WP:NPOV because it's a WP:POVFORK. We could merge but that would still require meeting NPOV and WP:FRINGE --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Watchdog is inconsequential fringe? The refs include show that pretty much every major UK supermarket chain has sold such BSOs, and that they have also produced advertising material, including TV adverts, that show the single most common fault of these BSOs: the front forks being reversed. Such a fault is obviously dangerous and your loaded terms like "wild" and "breathless" don't change a jot of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if this is a POVFORK, which article is it a fork from? The article history gives no hint. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fork from Bicycle. No different than if someone decided to created an article called Music that sucks or Not proper music from Music, and argued that those who listen to music that sucks, made by incompetent musicians out for a quick profit, will have their musical experience harmed and won't want to have the true joys of proper music.

We've all heard of cars made with defective brakes or steering, but that doesn't mean they should be covered in an article called Car shaped object because if a low-end car has bad brakes then it is "not a real car". Car shaped object would just be a catch-all for gathering attacks against cheap cars. Which would violate NPOV.

The fact that a group of bike advocates feel so strongly about this suggests it might be worthy of mention in Bicycle culture or Bicycle advocacy, such as how vehement they are that one must not ever call a bike a toy, and should only shop at specialty stores and not department stores or big box stores. Consumer Reports isn't steepd in cycling culture and so was willing to allow that buying a low end bike at a big box store might be fine for very light use. But, once again, I say start fresh and use the sources over in those articles without all the POV baggage left over from Bicycle Shaped Object. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles about low-end cars including shitbox, decrepit car, econobox, lemon, microcar, light car, strippo, voiturette, bike-engined car, bubble car, compact car and cyclecar. And there are numerous other fanciful classifications such as old man's car, pony car, Indonesian car, &c. The general principle here seems to be that American automobile jargon is ok but British cycling jargon is not. Warden (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that is of course other stuff exists, you do appear to have a point in terms of others maybe expressing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Trevj (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(shitbox probably should be nuked) - the comparison with Econobox is valid and informative - the econobox article is informative and appears balanced, despite lacking sources - I think if the BSO article was re-written to the standard of econobox or better most people would have no issues with the article.Oranjblud (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close (I commented above).

WP:POVFORK states ... do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it. I see only one instance of what could possibly be considered disruptive editing,[15] and that appears to be the removal of some unsourced content so isn't that contentious an edit.
Because the term is used by writers, it could be expected to be found in an encyclopedia. This AfD was opened within 48 hours of the cited merge proposal, but as a merger is valid then ~~I don't believe this AfD should be taking place~~this AfD appears premature, per WP:BEFORE. The current content could be summarised/rewritten, in accordance with what the sources say. Perhaps a targeted redirect to bicycle#Standards would be appropriate, if it is the case that BSOs often fail standard tests/inclusion of standardised components expected in products of higher quality.

Additionally, it's worth noting that perhaps a second relist last time (rather than the NC compromise) would have led to a different conclusion (e.g. merge). -- Trevj (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is rarely either productive to the conversation or demonstrative of an understanding on how to conduct onesself at AfD to attempt to wikilawyer a close in one's favour halfway through the process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and I'm sorry for not stating the above in my initial comment (some 6 hours and 8 intervening comments before, and within 24 hours of the start of this discussion). I'm not too keen on the wikilawyering accusation: if the parallel merge discussion determines consensus to include the term here on Wikipedia, then what's the point of this AfD? If it doesn't, that's the time to consider initiating a deletion discussion. I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies (except maybe for libellous BLPs) advising that the initiation of deletion discussions is productive when a current merge discussion is underway. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the merge discussion violates the spirit of the previous AfD. That discussion was NC, not Merge. Merging would be against that outcome. If you want to try again for a new outcome, it seems better do-over the AfD (what I did here) rather than just merge in spite of the previous AfD outcome. But then again, it's all so muddled!
By the way, Barack Osama is a term used by writers, but it's been deleted five times. Not ever term used by writers is a subject for an article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see what you mean about a merge being against the outcome of the consensus at the previous AfD, but WP:CCC (which is presumably why you started this) applies outside of AfD too. Perhaps an RfC on the merge should have been included when it was initiated. -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I've amended my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article truly stands alone, then a paragraph mention in bicycle would be appropriate, which then refers to this article as the main article. If such an edit is accepted by the bicycle guys, then we surely must keep this one (an active discussion is on that page at the moment). If it's not accepted there, without even passing mention of BSOs, then there is little reason to suppose a standalone article is appropriate.

Alternatively this could be merged with the bicycle advocacy page, perhaps with more consensus. ChrisUK (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid point - I think the fundamental topic here (cheap mass-marketed bicycles) is completely valid, and I would expect no-one would object to reasoned coverage of that topic. However the article under discussion, in terms of its content and coverage does not currently meet realistic standards for an encyclopedic article. Title is also problematic - it's derogatory/borderline derogatory. Oranjblud (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the unverified assertions (in Bicycle_Shaped_Object#Technical_disadvantages) or verify them - note that practically every sentence is qualified by "may", example of WP:WEASEL. Some of the content is scurrilous - eg using examples of wrongly assembled display models - does not hold much water unless the bike was sold. (

Suggest merge of remaining verified/verifiable info to bicycle (subsection "low cost bicycles" ?), keep a note that in the UK common slang term is 'BSO', and suggest keeping a redirect from that. Concentrate on facts, not opinions.Oranjblud (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A serious article or section discussing qualitative differences between bicycles might be appropriate. -Dhodges (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article currently has reliable sources that confirm its title and major points. It is about a very specific subset of bicycles and so I don't believe it is a content fork of bicycle. How the subject of the article got its name is irrelevant, I believe. Yes, the article has little positive to say about its subject, but isn't that true of any article about something generally considered to be bad? I can't find POV in the list of reasons for deletion, and anyone is welcome to find and add sources that extol the virtues of the subject. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have anything positive to say about the subject because if you find any examples of bikes in this category that are good in some way, then by definition they're not BSOs. The article is configured in such a way that only attacks on the subject are possible, and only one point of view is allowed.
We know that stores like Wal-Mart don't carry anything that doesn't sell in huge volume. It's the whole point of why stores like that exist. So if big box stores are carrying these bikes, they must be acceptable to a wide swath of the public. The sources cited are mostly narrow enthusiast media. This is why it is a fringe view. Maybe the general public simply doesn't demand bicycles that last very long? And this article exists to exhort them to change their tastes, which is POV-pushing.
Going again to Consumer Reports, the top-rated Schwinn Midmoor nominally sells for $250 (UK£159, AU$237), available online for as little as $230 (UK£146, AU$218), got exactly the same Consumer Reports score as the Cannondale Comfort 4, which is $580. Both weigh 32 lb (15 kg), yet from the sources in the article we are to believe that 15 kg (33 lb) is so heavy that the bike doesn't deserve the name. Is the Cannondale a BSO? One suspects that since both the Schwinn and Cannondale are made by Dorel Industries, they're the same bike re-branded at different price points, one to appeal to bike enthusiasts who need to feel like they paid a lot (i.e. Veblen goods), and the other for the general public who doesn't share that brand/price prejudice. The article is not about a specific subset of bikes; it's a nebulous to the point of meaninglessness.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I believe your first point is not correct. I can find articles claiming that a BSO, even with all its flaws, is better than nothing, just not from reliable sources. Here's a nice one: http://jgbicyclestories.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-defense-of-bicycle-shaped-object.html As for how well defined or not is this category of bikes, well that problem exists for nearly every category of bike and probably for taxonomy at all. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be a useful cite to add for a "BSO better than nothing" viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, the fact that this page isn't in article space doesn't mean that you're so far from the need for citation that you can simply make things up. The most POV aspect of this whole article and AfD has been your comments, that never fail to use flowery weasel terms rather than stating a simple fact.

"Most" of the sources here are enthusiast sources. That's because they're enthusiastic and write a lot. Yet the article also cites BBC TV programmes and national broadsheet newspapers, using the same term to make the same point with just as much insistence.
There is no claim here that an adequate bike can't be built and sold for £150. One of the first rules for making such a bike would be to keep it simple and avoid unnecessary features. The problem is more that the £150 bikes being sold are instead, because this suits the style their marketing has chosen, over-complex and thus these bikes can no longer achieve adequacy for £150. It does indeed seem strange that if an £89 no-suspension BSO can be sold, as can a £150 suspension BSO, then so few retailers are selling this "useful adequate bike" with no suspension and a £150 pricetag. Those bikes, if they are available, are not the target of this article and no-one except you is claiming this.
There is no claim here that a 33lb bike becomes over-heavy (for a mass-market bike). It's also a crucial point about bike quality (which this article does discuss) that much of a bike's longevity isn't about features or overall weight, it's about the quality of small components. Part of the trouble with BSO advertising is that their quality isn't obvious in adverts.
You claim that the Schwinn Midmoor and the Cannondale Comfort 4 are the same bike, because they weigh approximately the same and are made by the same parent company. Yet once again, much of bike quality is in the component quality details and you have no indication that they're in any way similar! My quick search doesn't find the Schwinn (they're rare in the UK so this is no surprise) except for one listing at £700, compared to £500 for the Cannondale. Some brief details I can see are that the Cannondale is a rigid carbon fork (suggesting a sensible use of manufacturing cost, without trying to achieve cut-price suspension) whilst the Schwinn has a low-end suspension fork. The Cannondale chainset is Shimano Alivio, recognised as a decent quality set as an entry-level to the "named" Shimano sets - just the sort of kit I'd specify on a commuting hybrid. Yet the Schwinn has that infamous flag to near-BSO status, "Shimano 21 speed" (i.e. 3x7). Now it's not obvious to non-cyclists and it's far from axiomatic, but "21" speeds is a world apart from "24" (i.e. 3x8, including Alivio), because 7-speed is based on the old screw-on freewheel systems whilst 8-speed uses a more modern cassette and freehub. As is regular advice to shoppers, getting a foot onto that "8 speed" rung makes for a much more maintainable bike long term. So just from these skimpy details, I'd consider the Cannondale a far better bike.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "claim". I said "one suspects". It's a straw man to suggest I claimed it as a fact. We agree that you can in fact build a decent bike for a low price, under £150 or whatever, and 33 lb/15kg could be an acceptable weight for some riders, and some riders might find what they need at a big-box store. So then what is the definition of a BSO? It's no different than saying "some cheap shoes are shoddy, but some are OK. Some cheap ballpoint pens are no good, but others are fine." It's a banality to observe this fact. And while were at it, some expensive bicycles are flawed, as are some expensive shoes and ballpoint pens. What we have here is an article that tries to instruct the public to not buy low cost bikes at big box stores, all because some of them are defective. Literally every product under the Sun could have an X shaped object article written because some low-cost products are unserviceable and don't last. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well-referenced article that has already survived one AfD in, essentially, its current form. Is it perfect? No, but that should be looked upon as a reason to improve it, not delete it. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a consumer advice site. This comes uncomfortably close to spilling over from the almost tautological "cheaper goods are not as well made" to "only idiots buy something like this. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually attempts to make the point that price isn't the issue with many bikes, but the problem instead is how the money is spent. The article also specifically uses "naive" instead of "idiot" to describe the consumers of these products. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that people who shop at Wal-Mart or Halfords are unaware that low-priced merchandise typically is lower quality than higher priced? What if they actually want a bike that is good for a few short rides two or three times a year? They might be poor, but are they naive? Coincidentally, a book, Just Ride was recently published that takes issue with the notion that you can't be a bicyclist unless you have top notch equipment and special clothing. Some people just want a toy you use occasionally. I think people who buy furniture at Ikea know what they're getting; they're not naive.

I notice all the complaints about difficult to install flat pack bikes begin and end in the year 2009. Was it an isolated event? Did they stop selling them or improve the design somehow to make them more foolproof? Halfords now offers free assembly, yet still offers full suspension bikes for £99.99. Problem solved? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition as I understand it from the above comments (if not present in the article) isn't simply the low price. Isn't it that the inclusion of a number of cheap wear-prone components (such as suspension) is unlikely to result in a durable product worth maintaining? The bike specialists (for want of a better term) think it makes more sense to buy a cheap basic bike than a cheap gimmicky one. The throwaway society of today is based around low-cost products and replacement purchases. Such bike specialists seem to feel so strongly against this that they have a specific term for such things. Yes, there are problems with the article as it is. Yes, there are concerns about its standalone notability. But that doesn't mean that the word shouldn't be included within Wikipedia. (I'm not going to !vote here, and I don't own a serviceable bike myself.) -- Trevj (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot write articles on the basis of opinions like "You can't include a proper suspension on a £100 bike". A few years ago you could have opined that you couldn't build a motorcycle with ABS for under £5000, but then the Honda CBR250R (2011) appeared and now ABS -- good ABS -- is a realistic option for some of the cheapest motorcycles on the market. And as I said, Halfords' now sells a £99 bike with a full suspension, and the complaints have evaporated in the last 3 years.

I get that some activists feel strongly about this -- but that says more about Bicycle culture or Bicycle advocacy, and so writing up something in those articles about bike enthusiasts, not about big box stores, would make sense. Just like the tastes of high end audio enthusiasts could be described in Audiophile, but not a separate article called £100 hi-fi systems are rubbish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've already admitted "TL:DR" that you didn't read the article before nominating it, but could you please read the article. Nowhere does it claim that "£100 hi-fi systems are rubbish" but rather that "hi-fi systems don't work if the speakers are wired to the phono inputs" and also that there's a systematic problem of retail supermarkets failing to be competent as technical bike shops, by gross assembly errors to the point of danger. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted no such thing. What is the point of accusations of this nature? It can't change the outcome of this discussion. Re-reading, I see one reference to a misassembly incident in 2011, on a blog post by Eddie Allen, a Web Content Manager and bike blogger, who credits Facebook as his source. Does that meet WP:RS? The rest, the BBC reports, are all 2009, nothing before, nothing since. Where is the evidence that it wasn't an isolated problem in 2009? Where is the evidence that the tens of thousands of buyers of these bikes (they sell upwards of 50,000 of one model!) are naive? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the evidence that they're not naive? Even if it was an isolated incident in 2009, Wikipedia should say something like "The term bicycle shaped object (or BSO) was coined by some observers in 2009. [Blah, blah, summary definition per RSs] This was later refuted by [RS] because ..." (We need RSs that it was refuted, not just editors deciding it's so, which amounts to original research.) -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says if you want to assert that the tens of thousands of people who continue to buy these bikes every year are naive, then it is your job to cite it, not other editors' job to refute it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis. Watchdog first covered this issue nearly twenty years ago. It really would help if you'd study articles and their sources before nominating them for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. --76.189.104.118 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think the current article is very good, and I'm not convinced that the direction that expansion has taken since the prior AFD is the best way to develop the topic. That said, AFD is not cleanup. This topic, under this term, has the discussion in reputable sources that we generally expect to satisfy the GNG. I disagree with some of the claims for deletion. I do not believe that the term lacks specificity, or that it has been used inconsistently in the sources; a bicycle-shaped object is not merely a cheap bicycle, but a poor quality one (whether by intent or accident), generally sold through nontraditional bicycle retailers. The sources are pretty much in agreement there. Nor do I believe that there is a NPOV problem here, any more than there is for Lemon (automobile) or any other article about an inherently negative topic. With all that said, I may try my hand at cleaning the article up. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the sources seem not to fall under WP:RS (blogs, consumer review sites, enthusiast sites, etc.). Those sources that do meet that guideline that do mention the term appear to do so in passing; furthermore, there appears to be no consensus on the definition (that is, what specific characteristics make a bicycle fall into this category). Ultimately this is a very weak dictionary definition with possible original research and synthesis used to expand the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have read an old copy of the article, because the current copy, although not yet perfectly worded, is about a type of bicycle, not a term. The reliable sources that discuss this type of bicycle include the BBC, Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic), UC Davis, University of South Carolina, Consumers Union, the Bangor Daily News, and the Herald Sun. These sources use various terms to describe the type of bicycle discussed in the article, and several of those terms are listed in the first sentence of the article. These sources write about these types of bicycles, however, not the various terms used to describe them, and they describe specific attributes of these types of bicycles: weight, fit, durability, components, materials, etc.
I do not see "consensus on the definition" on the list of reasons for deleting an article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A bicycle is

is a human-powered, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.
— Bicycle

, regardless of its quality. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were about the expression "bicycle shaped object", that might be a valid point. The article is about a type of bicycle, however, that goes by several names, one of which happens to conflict with the definition of "bicycle". The case could be made, perhaps, that "bicycle shaped object" is not the best title for this article, but that is not what this discussion is about, and not having the best name possible is not on the list of reasons for deleting an article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is mis-titled, what would a better title be? Low-quality bicycle? That's about the best I can come up with... and even if that title still isn't perfect, it illustrates the point: Do we really need an article on low-quality bicycles? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that there's a lot of Australian POV (note that the price point is cited in Australian dollars). I've never heard of the term "bicycle-shaped object," but could it be a notable Australian thing? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a small amount of good content here on problems in bicycle manufacturing and if anyone ever created an article on that topic then some of this could go there, but there is no such topic now. Most of the content in this article is unsourced or from non-reliable sources. The best action in this case is to delete. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 20 August 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kulay

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

I created this article by mistake. Janbryan (talk) 19:09, 12 August 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. There is a rough consensus here for deletion. Many explicitly cited the provisions of BLPDELETE as justification, and I cannot say the claim is unwarranted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amiram Goldblum

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

This article seems to have been created for political reasons, and based on sources that do not meet WP:RS. Aside from those sources, Goldblum appears not to meet the notability criteria either as an activist or as a chemist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Amiram Goldblum is here as User:Rastiniak. He doesn't consider himself to be a notable chemist, and would prefer that this article be deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Goldblum has threatened to sue Wikipedia for discussing his SLAPP lawsuits. At this point, deletion may not be an answer.He has tried intimidating his critics through the courts and can offer no proof against his hiring a terrorist to work in his lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeYiddel (talk • contribs)
- Response. We try to keep AfD discussions focused on Wikipedia policy. Have you found any more reliable sources discussing this person in detail? Is he notable for any reason other than a single hiring decision? Wikipedia is not the news, but... did any significant newspapers cover the hiring decision that apparently is his sole claim to notability? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. With a GS h-index of 16 and named chair he appears to pass at least two categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

CHAIR ?. The Named Chair criterion is frequently due to donation by families to a university for commemorating thier loved ones. Only chairs named after major scientists such as deceased Nobel Prize or major prize winners in the other fields (e.g. Math) and given at major universities should be considered as criteria Rastiniak (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

Yes, but being placed into a named chair position is usually considered an honor over and above simply being "professor". Some are certainly more honorable than others but any named chair is treated as an honor. --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original version of this page was clearly an attack page created by several WP:SPAs that should have been speedied. It seems to have been created largely to lend credence to an attack website (which I won't link to here) which could then "quote wikipedia". While that has been rectified now (thank FisherQueen), given the borderline notability, I'm going to fall back on Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion_of_BLPs which says that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I think that probably fits here. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- passes WP:PROF and GNG, but as an attractor of POV, negative contributors and per "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" I don't see the encyclopedia benefiting from including this article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an otherwise notable subject, attractors of POV & negative contributors are better handled through article protection. But "... where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus" seems potentially appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am usually sympathetic to requests from LPs to delete BLPs of marginal notability about themselves. In this case, due to the aggressive behavior of a person who implies that he is the subject (I am aware of the possibility of dirty tricks in this area) among other reasons, I am not. As several editors agree, the subject passes WP:Prof and the subject is involved in political activities, which adds to GNG. The BLP, in its present form, seems to be objective and inoffensive, and I see no reason to delete it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Given that the version of the page which Goldblum was responding to was an attack page, I think his anger was understandable. Did he act like a responsible wikipedian? No, he didn't. But that's because he wasn't a wikipedian. Most non-editors have probably never read a single wiki guideline or have any idea how things work behind the scenes. I don't see his "aggressive" initial behavior as something to hold against him, especially given the context that he was responding to something which he felt personally threatened by. --Bachrach44 (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and thanks for the thorough explanation. The article is now in an acceptable non-attack NPOV state. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Notability -- Subject appears notable. Named chair at major university likely passes WP:PROF. He may also be generally notable for his activist activities as well (especially if he's notable enough to be drawing attacks). Another editor mentioned this when-in-doubt guideline for deletion "... where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus". If indeed the subject requested deletion of this article in its current state, then I would be okay with deleting since it's at least arguably borderline. But (1) if the subject requested deletion of an earlier article that was attack-oriented, then we need some comment from subject about this version of the article. (And as I said elsewhere, protection is one of the answers to an article prone to POV attacks and vandalism.) AND (2) if it's just that the subject is expressing doubt about his own notability in chemistry, I respectfully think we can override him based on WP:PROF (if editor opinion is leading that way, of course). --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea whether Goldblum is notable enough as a research chemist to merit a WP page. However, as a founder of and activist in Peace Now, he has a very high public profile, both in Israel and elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, he would indeed merit an article. But, since this article appears to have been created in order to attack the subject, and has attracted continued defamatory comments (probably by socks of a persistent vandal), and since a person credibly claiming to be the subject has requested deletion, this may be an occasion when BLP requirements oblige us to remove the article. If it remains, it should be protected in order to prevent socks and SPAs from vandalising it. RolandR (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to notable as an academic as well as an activist. The article in its present form is a neutral, factual stub. It needs a couple of Wikipedians to watchlist the page to keep it neutral. The article is already semiprotected. There is one autoconfirmed user who keeps adding negative material despite being cautioned multiple times about NPOV; if he keeps this up a topicban might be warranted. These are problems that can be dealt with, and there is no reason to delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the more egregious editors on this article have now been blocked as socks of serial abusive puppeteer Runtshit. It's likely that others will appear, so continuing vigilance will be required if the article is kept. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 20 August 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Vanyo

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

No indication of WP:notability. Author of 1 recently published book. Only sources given are from the university he attended, a local paper talking about that university and Amazon entries for himself and his book. Google searches not finding anything significant about him. noq (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:BIO, seems to be an ad for this person's book. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, another source added - interviewed in a separate book. Book section rewritten as encyclopedic. Wikibv21 19:52, 12 August 20012 (UTC)
- Comment the above comment is from the article author, who appears to be Mr. Vanyo himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just isn't enough coverage for this author or his recently released book, so both fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. I noticed that the author blanked the page, so could this be taken to mean that the article's author requests deletion?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED under CSD criterion A7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 August 2012‎

Joshua Jonathan Owen

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

Due to claims of importance, I don't feel that this article meets CSD criterion A7; however, Owen is simply not notable. Googling for "Joshua Jonathan Owen" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up nothing. A general Google search for the name turns up two identical false positives from a blog and one additional false positive from a name database. Based on my searches, Owen seems to fail the general notability guideline outright. CtP (t • c) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only asserted notability is being ranked in a few computer games, but WP:ATHLETE explicitly does not cover esports. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:34, 12 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Spalding

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

Subject lacks notability. As is often the case with authors, there is nothing about this specific subject that denotes notability worthy of WP inclusion. The only aspect that would roughly qualify would being part of a larger collection that was nominated (but didn't win) an award. As such, the collection may be notable, but the author not. Article has and continues to be an orphan thus inferring a lack of relevance. Article was originally created by an anonymous user who only created other articles relating to this author thus inferring a conflict of interest. Lastly, article is completely devoid of any references to support the text. Primecoordinator (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage about the subject, only articles written by her on her website or in a couple of magazines — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 13 August 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) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community

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

This is undue collation of facts, with possible synthesis implied through their collation. Don't see any indication of long-term notability or how these would pass WP:CRIME — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is an attempt to string together essentially unrelated independent events under a single banner, very possibly to make some sort of nationalist political point. Yech. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Paying a quick visit to see other work of the content creator generated this TROUBLING DIFF. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking. Pretty much run of the mill POV editing and outside of normal practice for notability debates. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Work in progess. Hathatehat (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, possibly with move/rename. It is a fundamentally notable topic - check out the sources (NYT, for instance) which discuss individual incidents in relation to a broader trend. Crisco's statement that the collection of these incidents is synth is thus not borne out by the sources, which do link them together. (In the same way that "individual" Catholic child sex abuse cases are linked by reassignment and cover-ups, questionable admission of priests, and so on, sources point out issues that span cases: mesirah, internal/extra-judicial means of resolution...) Article most certainly needs to move away from "list of incidents" format; these are transitory, and foregrounding these case-spanning issues would be more beneficial to the reader. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese, although a re-title may be in order, and I'd want many eyes to prevent a POV sitation. Notable topic, but I'd also include other communities, perhaps across the United States. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese, the Catholic parallel is telling. Open to rename. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese. I'm open to re-titling. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sexual abuse in haredi communities in the United States? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would expand the scope quite a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 16 August 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 Hirak, Syria. Orlady (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque al-Herak

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

An individual building that is not notable. The fact it is damaged does not make it notable. JetBlast (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly an historic building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is the topic non-notable? Was this nomination for deletion based upon the suggested source searching per section D of WP:BEFORE? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a building at the end of the day. Do we create an article for every building that has been damaged in the world? --JetBlast (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an historic building. It's not the fact that it's been damaged that makes it notable, but the fact that it's an historic mosque, as stated in the referenced document. And yes, we do create articles for historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the guideline that says a building being historic makes it notable for a Wikipedia article? If there isn't one, then the fact that it's historic doesn't mean anything. A subjective opinion on historic merit does not nullify the need for reliable sources per the WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually the document says nothing about it being a historic building, the entire mention of the mosque is "Mosque al-Herak in the Dara’a region 19." It is not one of the world heritage sites mentioned, nor is it one of the tentative world heritage sites. All we can deduce from that source is that there is a mosque in Dara'a called Mosque al-Herak, and this information is sourced from a youtube video. Even the article we're discussing doesn't say that it is a "historic mosque" anywhere.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be missing the fact that this is not sourced from a Youtube video, but actually from a document compiled by the Global Heritage Fund, a reputable organisation. The second word of its title gives a little clue as to the status of the buildings mentioned. Since the list in which this and the other mosques nominated for deletion is headed: "Shelling damage has been reported at three World Heritage Sites, a Tentative World Heritage Site, and several national heritage sites," one can assume that this is a Syrian national heritage site. Since when does a building have to be a World Heritage Site to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at reference number 19 of that document (the citation for this mosque being damaged) it is a youtube video. That a document uses youtube as a source for anything should make you question its reliability. Relying on "clues" and assumptions to determine something is original research. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, rubbish. The Youtube video is merely being used as an illustration and using a document issued by a reputable organisation as sourcing is most certainly not OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source for this article has a trivial mention of the Mosque, which is sourced to a youtube video (hardly a reliable source). Having searched for other sources all I can find are a few news articles with brief mentions that a mosque in Al-Herak has been damaged, and it is impossible to state with complete certainty that it is the one being mentioned in this article without relying on shaky assumptions. The mosque lacks significant coverage in any independent and reliable sources and is therefore not notable. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A brief trivial mention in a single source does not give enough weight to warrant an article. The article fails WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The damage to what appears to be this mosque is already mentioned, with slightly more detail, in the existing article on Hirak, Syria. As, so far as I can see, this article was created to justify including the mosque in List of heritage damaged during Syrian Civil War, I would suggest that should this article be deleted, the link on the relevant entry on that list should be redirected to the article on the town. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Flea 88.2. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McEwan

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

This article has been often speedily deleted and was salted. A request for restoration at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 3 resulted in no consensus about whether the article's recreation should be allowed. The version of the article that was proposed for recreation is therefore referred to this board for a decision about the topic's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Flea 88.2. Liam McEwan has enough sourced coverage to warrent mention, but falls a little short of enough coverage to justify a standalone article. He only has coverage in relation to his association with The Flea 88.2. As this target article is currently so small, it is unlikely that individual hosts should be spu out as separate articles any time soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Flea 88.2 per SJ. Sources not there for article, but enough to mention at the station. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned already in the DR: I don't think that this person is notable. mabdul 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article is well written, and factual. Have been looking for info on the subject for a while now. Thanks! 19, August 2012(UTC)
just saw this article. interesting, his Bieber interview is well done. Article is factual from what I have heard. 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.195.199 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by NawlinWiki under criteria G3; "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowball

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

What the hell? KzKrann (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a nonsensical hoax. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:53, 12 August 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 Ariel Pink discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit (EP)

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

Not notable Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 11:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --JetBlast (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced (fails WP: GNG), plus the article doesn't assert any notability. Electric Catfish 19:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artists discography page, in fact the opening paragraph looks like complete nonsense almost. Seasider91 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who are these people, why don't they have a record label for this album, where is there a reference to charting, what major awards were received, and how in any way is this EP significant or notable? Fails WP:NALBUM (and for that matter probably WP:BAND as well). Яεñ99 (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ariel Pink discography per standard practice when there isn't enough for a separate article.--Michig (talk) 20:53, 14 August 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 by Jimfbleak: G11 - advertising (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fruition of the Spirit-Beyond

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

This is possibly about a book and/or some art? It is basically some quotes from the bible and some sentences I can't parse. It claims that "All work is copywritten 200012 JGP", and has no references. heather walls (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search showed absolutely zero coverage for this book. In fact, the only site that actually mentions this specific book is Wikipedia. There's no notability and both the original editor's page and the wiki entry appear to be an attempt to promote the book, especially considering that the user attempted to add a facebook page to Visual arts. (I checked the fb page, which does not seem to exist.) Closing admins should be aware that almost the exact same material is on the original editor's user page and that the content on said user page is all pretty promotional. I've left a warning on her talk page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to speedy this, as it's painfully clear that this is not notable in the slightest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 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) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishhat Mataji

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

Need a third party opinion. Lack of references, unclear subject matter, very little text to display (possibly WP:1 SENTENCE) Touch Of Light (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already declined the speedy deleteion of this page as this was some kind of deity rather than a person, so not eligible for A7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources appear to available, Google Scholar, Books, and News have zero results for this. It appears to be irretrievably unverifiable. Also fails WP:N for the same reasons. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before deleting, sources in the languages used in that area should be checked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no source for Devanagari texts (विषहट माताजी, विशत माताजी, बिशत माताजी). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per copyvio of this. I have tagged it for so. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a Wikipedia mirror, their material is copied from our article, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu#TutorGig. I've removed the tag. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete There seems to be some links for Vishat Mataji, but it still fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 August 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 List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Lakoda Rayne. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakoda Rayne

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:Too Soon. The band is only notable for being on The X-Factor and has not released any music that meets WP:BAND. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of this group before, but the only issue here is whether or not they've received coverage by reliable sources. If they appear on a major national television program (such as The X-Factor), then I would guess that such sources exist. However, the nominator has based the AfD on whether or not they've released any music yet, which is not a valid criteria for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was WP:BAND. I've added it now. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND doesn't supplant WP:N. But even if it did, BAND #9 and #12 seem to apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable beyond the competition werldwayd (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only spent about 5 minutes and came up with these sources: hollywoodreporter.com, People, Rolling Stone, Latina, E Online, Yahoo! News, Washington Post, Digital Spy, CBS News, MTV News. Seems notable enough to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Lakoda Rayne like before. I don't see much to indicate notability outside the show. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Redirect Nothing has changed since the last nomination; no album activity, no recording activity, and they've even lost a member since then. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 12 August 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} 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Marino

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

Subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 06:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actor. Wikipedia is not IMDB. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG as lack of reliable sources and coverage. This one's open and shut.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 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) 15:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cyr

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

No reliable, in-depth coverage establishing this individual's notability has been presented. The only marginally acceptable source is a New York Times blog post, but that makes no mention of Cyr. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 August 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} 03:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search under his name and YT handle, but was unable to find where he's ultimately notable. He might be popular on YouTube, but popularity does not guarantee notability. Nor does millions of views and thousands of subscribers. It might make it more likely to find reliable sources, but I was unable to find even one reliable and independent source that mentions him. Ultimately this is just someone who is popular on YouTube, but that popularity has not translated into notability per Wikipedia's standards. The current sources on the article are pretty much all unusable as anything other than primary or trivial sources. Also, his association with notable persons does not transfer notability to him and his lack of coverage in reliable sources shows that he's unlikely to fulfill notability guidelines anytime soon. If there was even one source that was reliable I'd suggest a redirect to List of YouTube personalities, but he doesn't have them and I think a standard for that page would be that they'd have to have a reliable source to back up their claim to fame.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with Tokyogirl on many points. I would recommend that it be redirected to List of YouTube personalities as he definitely is a pretty known YouTube personality. Well-known on YouTube, but very few other places which is the reason why this article should not be kept. The claim of notability is there; however, the problem is that the only sources that I find are from social media and are not reliable or independent. It would be nice if a newspaper or two would pick up and write a story about him, but until that happens, there simply are not enough sources for notability. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MalcomMarcomb11376 to List of YouTube personalities. - AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:43, 19 August 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) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangdb

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

I can't find any evidence that this article passes our inclusion guidelines Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indications of notability. When I was searching for subject's coverage I came across a gigaom article with a comment by Gigaom user "cloud-dev": "Please check out Bangdb (http://www.iqlect.com) the new key value store which seems to be very fast in terms of IOPS for both read and write. The Bangdb will be in many flavors for ex; embedded, network, elastic cache/imdg. Being crash proof, with many configuration parameters, it can be tuned to operate in most suitable fashion for a given requirement." Note, the bangdb article is written by Wikipedia editor cloud-dev. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is a new product, with every sign of being a COI promotional article on a topic of no evident notability. 3rd party sourcing is crucial to demonstrate its significance. If there isn't any, then delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:44, 14 August 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. A7, non-notable club Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G3XE

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

OR, unsalvageable as an encyclopedic entry. Fish ^Barking? 01:33, 12 August 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) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise tour

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

This page duplicates Mylo Xyloto Tour. An article called Paradise Tour was created by User:94.171.180.179, and appears to have been speedily deleted, best I can tell. Four times 1 2 3 4 I have gone into this new article, and out of caution, made the page a redirect to Mylo Xyloto Tour, and each time the IP has reverted my change without a response to me on his talk page or the article talk page or even a comment in the edit summary. I created an AfD rather than request an A10 speedy because the article is not "recently created," and to draw the attention of the community to this user's behavior on this page. The strange thing is that this IP has also made many edits to the Mylo Xyloto page as recently as today. Bottom line, I don't think this article should exist on Wikipedia. It's not the correct title of the tour. I also think some sort of action ought to be taken against the user, although I realize this isn't the place and I'm not sure what action. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also think the article title should be salted. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 09:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, IP removed the AfD tag five or six times this morning and has been blocked. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A-10 criteria as it clearly duplicates the Mylo Xyloto Tour article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 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. I performed a further search on sources to see if there was any further information on the subject, but was unable to find the kind of stuff to show she passes the GAC. Given that she doesn't pass WP:PROF either, and several strong arguments by delete !voters, what needs to be done seems clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Comstock

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jamie Comstock

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

Subject of article, an academic, fails to meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It further fails to meet the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject was the provost - the chief academic officer - at a medium-sized university. There was also some controversy under her tenure that attracted national attention. She meets the general notability standards. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provost is not the chief academic officer: President is. A few well cited papers but with a GS h-index of only 10 in a high cited field does not pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The president is the chief executive officer with oversight over the entire university. The provost is the chief academic officer with responsibility for the curriculum and faculty affairs. Our article about the position describes this. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so a provost is not the head honcho as required by WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the general notability guidelines trump WP:PROF. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sure do, providing you can find any. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As Xxanthippe says: not the cief academic officer and does not meet any other criterion of WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She holds the position of Chief Provost which may not be president, but it is a top postion. Also, she was interim president at least once [16] and the Wiki article says twice. I think this interim position is certainly an honor because the institution is not going to choose someone unqualified for the position (unless they want management problems to develop). Then combine that with her original work which includes creating " the new College of Communication" (Butler's sixth college), "expanding international education", and a noteworthy role of support that makes education at Butler available to underpriveleged high school students. Furthermore, she has been "chief academic officer" at three institutions [17], and oversaw "the highest overall retention rates in Butler's history". Based on the above she is appears to be an above average academian. I will follow that with this blurb "She also promoted ... gender equity, curriculum reform, stronger student retention through engagement, and facilitation of international

student and faculty exchanges. [18]. In addition, it appears that she has published in peer reviewed publications [19]. Overall this is an above average individual (academian) who actively makes positive changes in her field either through action or through publishing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Comstock was also centrally involved with this student blogger incident, and this incident recieved some news coverage. [20], [21]. So far the news coverage at Huffington and US News focuses on the Inside Higher ED article (which is a reference of this Wiki article). Also the US News article states that this "... incident garnered so much national attention from media outlets..." [22]. --------- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral observation. I am completely ignorant about notability guidelines, have never commented (as far as I can remember) on anything like this. But Steve, I want to note that your point about her being published in peer-reviewed publications is completely moot; this is a minimum requirement just to become a tenured professor at most major universities. And that blurb that she promoted ... gender equity, curriculum reform, stronger student retention through engagement, and facilitation of international student and faculty exchanges. is nothing more than what a PR department could and would produce for any of its administrators. Having said all this, she may very well merit having her article preserved; I don't know enough about how those things are decided, I just wanted to comment on two items that really didn't amount to as much as they may have appeared. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Geoff, Xxanthippe and Guillaume. Does not meet WP:PROF requirements. Also, references used to support accomplishments are internal sources. Richardpipe (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Richardpipe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

_____________________________________********Please contribute above this line******* ______________________________________________________________

Moot comments regarding now-fixed listing issue.

Question Why is this marked "2nd nomination"? Where's the first AfD? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because my connection crashed and disconnected me in the midst of the nom and I started over, only to find I needn't have. Mea maxima culpa. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 16:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 4 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Coney_Island#Transportation. SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation to Coney Island

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

A close-to-useless article with a lot of irrelevant or duplicate content. The information in the Subway and Buses section already exists in Coney Island#Transportation and the last paragraph in the former section saying how long it takes for each train that serves Coney Island to get to Manhattan completely violates Wikipedia's policy of not being a travel guide. The second paragraph of that section describing the lines that go there as well as the History section talking about their history are not relevant at all to Coney Island and their contents already exist in each of the lines' articles. The Bicycle section is very short and can easily be added to Coney Island#Transportation if this article is deleted. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Transportation in New York~~ Coney Island#Transportation (probably better target). Certain large hubs have specific transportation articles, but transportation "to" somewhere is hardly notable as a standalone in 99.99% of cases ("transportation to disney world"). The New York transport article's already got a section for Long Island, among others, so this would fit nicely there. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is obviously the same topic as Coney Island#Transportation. Discussing the extent to which this should be split off or merged is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging and redirecting are appropriate results of AfD. My intent when nominating this article was to have it completely deleted because its content either already exists in other articles or are completely irrelevant to the subject, so there is no need to have this here, but its up to other editors to decide what should happen in the end. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As LegendaryRanger says, merge is a completely appropriate conclusion of an AfD[iscussion] (you know this too Warden), and we are in fact talking about "deleting" this page by your paradigm because the article is an inappropriate "fork" from the "article" (really anchored section) of the original. Under Warden's interpretation no fork-based nominations could ever be brought to AfD, instead we'd be swimming in a sea of hardly used redirects. If someone had created this as a redirect initially nobody'd have a problem, but they didn't, hence it's at AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coney Island#Transportation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close - AfD is not meant for clean-up or whether to split or to merge articles. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually. Addressed above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge", "redirect", "split", etc. are all valid outcomes at AfD. Nominations that call for something other than deletion are speedy kept; discussions that develop WP:CONSENSUS otherwise are closed in accordance with the consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coney Island#Transportation. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Charles (talk) 21:17, 15 August 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.