Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 May >

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. Consensus is to keep at this time, VERY weakly the panda ₯’ 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Fisher (actor)

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

Not a notable actor JDDJS (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Bali88 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got enough press coverage to meet WP:GNG, mainly for theater work. As well as his casting as Cyborg which has attracted significant press attention[1][2] he's also got notices for his stage work: Fetch Clay, Make Man brought articles about Fisher[3][4] and reviews[5][6][7][8]; reviews for To Kill A Mockingbird[9][10] But the article's a bit off: short The Good, the Bad and the Confused doesn't seem notable or well-known. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- His casting as Cyborg does not mean anything yet. They have not started filming yet, and his role is suppose to be minor in the film. He can also easily be replaced at this point. JDDJS (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACTOR is dicey but I think there is enough coverage coupled with his forthcoming major role that we should hang onto it. In close call situations I usually lean towards retention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep minor coverage, but cyborg role is going to push him easily into GNG/NACTOR. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2014 (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. Although Emeraude's much-improved version receives a considerable amount of support in this AfD, there is also substantial and well-argued support for a merge. This close does not preclude a merge; discussions about whether a merge is appropriate can continue on the relevant talk page. What this AfD has concluded is that Liberty GB should not be a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Liberty GB

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

Proposal as administrative action per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_1. I offer no opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never seen this reason for deletion given before, can anyone explain it to me? What does administrative action mean? The article could stand to be improved, but the party seems to get a lot of attention and press. Bali88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just means I've proposed it for deletion, not because I think it should be deleted, but as a function of my job as an admin. There was a deletion review, which I closed. Rather than making a decision myself on whether it should be deleted or not, I'm asking the larger community to make that decision. I personally don't have any opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. I hope that helps. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standing for election does not confer notability automatically. This party is only getting coverage because of forthcoming elections and a one-off event (the arrest by police of their leader). Nothing suggests notability to the standard we would usually expect from an organisation. doktorb _words^deeds 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paul Weston; I can't ascertain any notability independent of him. Merely standing in a parliamentary election of sorts doesn't automatically confer notability; there are many parties that stood in 2010 that don't have articles either, especially when you get to "three candidates". Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep I came across the article which was linked by this edit in Tell MAMA UK, which suggests that members of this party other than Paul Weston are being noted (albeit not by the national press). I also note that the reason the article in its original form was deleted was because it was created by a now banned user. With a link from the Tell MAMA article and possibly others, I would hope that less politically motivated/biased editors would keep an eye on such an article. Alfietucker (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - having seen Emeraude's version, I am slightly more reassured by the appearance of more RS citations, so have upgraded to a Keep. Alfietucker (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion up this point is not about the current version of the page. I think people should read the deletion review discussion before coming to a conclusion. I started the review because I had attempted to create a page, but found that a page with the same name had already been deleted (though I clearly could not see what was on that page and so could not understand why it was deleted). The deleter would not allow re-creation, hence the deletion review. That has now been resolved and I had drafted a replacement page which I have just now uploaded. A number of contributors to the discussion review commented that my draft was acceptable and addressed the substantive issues of the original. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paul Weston (politician) as per Sceptre. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Paul Weston (politician). With respect to Emeraude for rescuing this from salting, the party just isn't notable beyond having Paul Weston as its leader. You can see it in the way that this article is laid out - brief mention of the party's forming (by Weston), detail about Weston's personal life and various parties he's ditched, more brief mention of the party's candidates (one is Weston), and more detail on Weston's arrest. The party is inseparable from him; mention it in his article. I note that the party already is mentioned in his article and with more detail than what's here, so replacing this with a redirect would be very easy. Ivanvector (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given the history of this article being deleted and recreated ~~by politically-biased editors~~, I propose that if the result of this AfD is merge/redirect, that the redirect be full-protected until some time after the upcoming election. Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy, this article passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. It has been covered by BBC, The Independent, and The Telegraph. Regardless of opinions, guidelines suggested notability in this case. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of the party, its candidates, and controversies related to it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding reliable sources: the sources mentioned don't give any substantial coverage to the party beyond it being a creation of Paul Weston, as I noted above. The sources are really about him, not about the party or only really trivial coverage of the party's existence. It's not enough for WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke (poet)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and is unnotable. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would agree, but I hope that none of the work attributed to this Edmund Burke ~~is from~~ has been conflated with/from the famous author and philosopher of the same name, Edmund Burke (see here). Quis separabit? 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Bali88 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the article starts off saying the subject pretty much didn't do anything, you know things are about to go downhill. But for the record; the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:CREATIVE. Probably a strong A-7 candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Libertas80 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are inadequate to establish notability. RomanSpa (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Product catalogue management

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

There's no reliable sources for this article. The article seems to be mostly original research. Transcendence (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly exists, but I am having trouble finding any sort of working definition that doesn't appear to come from this article. As of right now I think the nom may be right and this is WP:OR. In any case the article certainly fails WP:NRV in its present form. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Product information management, which already covers catalogs (in more detail). This one is unsourced, gives a poor indication of importance, and possible OR. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:07, 9 May 2014 (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} 09:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morey MK 1 knife

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

I searched for 3 days for reliable information on this knife. I came up with nothing but forum chatter and a few sales posts. There are no reliable sources that I could find in knife, gun or military magazines. I have seen one of the knives in person, but cannot say it is notable or has had any influence on the knife industry, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant SPAM by a WP:SPA. No RS sources are cited and Google turned up nothing that even comes close to ringing the notability bell. This article should have gotten the axe a long time ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPA created article, edited it 4 years later article is of no real notability so hits WP:NOTE as well Amortias (T)(C) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. kirk

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO and no citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable YouTube talking head. Quis separabit? 00:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of coverage on the Internet, but no sign of any reliable sources yet. Note that I changed the article title to capitalize the surname T.J. Kirk, and note that there appears to be no relation to the jazz/fusion band T.J. Kirk associated with Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Charlie Hunter and others. SchreiberBike talk 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any article would inevitably be a perma-stub saying almost nothing, or a promotional puff piece based on the subject's own writing, or an attack piece citing random blog posts. There doesn't seem to be any third-party reliable sources writing about the subject in substance. --Rob (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2014 (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 all. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2014

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

Month has not yet occured so there is no reason for this article to exist yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and while I suspect that there will be people who die from LEO during these months, there is no reason to have these lists yet. Zell Faze (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is also nominating the following other pages for deletion for the same reason:

But it is not nominating the series as a whole for deletion. An AfD that may do such things can be found on this page. The nominator for the linked to AfD has withdrawn his AfD. This AfD comes as a result of a few of the issues that were raised at that AfD. Zell Faze (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with this argument. The months described in these articles have not yet even begun, thus articles mentioning unpredictable events in them are unnecessary. While Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, articles describing predicted astronomical events, such as an Eclipse or Transit, are entirely notable, and I support their inclusion in Wikipedia; but seeing as how a killing by law enforcement is almost always completely unpredictable, articles describing these events in the future are pointless. I am Quibilia. (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear-cut violation of the crystal policy. Specifically, the article violate section 2 of Crystal, which states that "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" are not allowed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL or Too Soon either way the pages shouldnt exist, although there may be killings unfortunatley they may not even be notable Amortias (T)(C) 21:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lists for the period from June 2014 to December 2014 per NOTCRYSTAL, without prejudice to their recreation at a future date when NOTCRYSTAL is no longer an issue. It may be that these lists should be speedily deleted under CSD A10 as they add nothing to the parent list. James500 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a waste of time. CRYSTAL was designed for things that cannot be predicted with certainty. I scoff at the notion that because the specific circumstances cannot be predicted, that the thing itself cannot. Police killings are statistically inevitable. It is the deletors that are employing a crystal ball, and an obviously faulty one at that. Anarchangel (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By this logic we can legitimatley have a page on the death of any major celebrity on the basis everybody dies Amortias (T)(C) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest reading through WP:Crystal again, specifically section 2. It clearly states that subjects that lack coverage by reliable sources in the present do not deserve an article, even if the subject will inevitably happen at a future date. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while (sadly) it is statistically likely that at least one person wil be killed by a peace officer each month somewhere, it does not automatically follow that every killing everywhere is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (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 Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show). This was a fraught and bad-tempered discussion containing a number of allegations, and ad hominem/ad feminem arguments were given no weight in the close. Bbny-wiki-editor has put a creditable amount of effort into finding and linking sources, but I see no evidence that anyone else was convinced. It will be in order to turn the redirect back into an article when and if sources that this AfD did not consider are unearthed.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Kelly Brannigan

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

I'm suggesting a redirect to Deal or No Deal, this girl is known for holding #24 case on the show. I find that hardly notable. There is 1 reliable source about her, the other info is from a dead link, and a mention about her getting a tattoo covered on a show. Fails WP:GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: either redirect (as non-notable mannequin; UK term for model) to Deal or No Deal or delete outright. Quis separabit? 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know all about assuming good faith, but this appears to be a bad-faith nomination by Lady Lotus. It seems like she's mad because I objected to some counterproductive edits she made to the page, including the nonsensical deletion of all unused bio template parameters [see her Talk page for the discussion], so now she's retaliating by trying to delete the page. If she thought this subject was non-notable, why'd she bother with all of the edits yesterday rather than nominating the page for deletion? As for the notability question, the nominator inexplicably deleted two major sources from the article but now is claiming sources don't exist. The NBC source still exists here and there's an SI.com source here that she deleted from the page mere moments before nominating the page for deletion. Combine those sources with this one, this one, and this one, plus the fact that Brannigan made dozens of appearances on a popular national TV show, plus a feature on Inside Edition, plus the many blog posts and photo galleries that exist of her online (see Google), and she meets GNG. She's certainly not the most notable person on Wikipedia, but there are hundreds of less notable bios on here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom as no indication of notability . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bbny-wiki-editor you assume bad faith, 1. you dont WP:OWN the article so why would I nominate an article just to spite you? 2. When I first saw the article, I was trying to clean it up but the more I looked at it the more I realized she isnt even notable (which her notability had been in question for 3 years). 3. The SI reference, referenced her being "Lady of the Day" or something, something that is hardly notable thus why I removed it. And like I said per my nomination she fails WP:GNG, notability is having signifiant coverage, which she doesnt have. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed bad faith because it appears to be a bad-faith nomination. From the looks of things, you were done with the Brannigan page yesterday and only went back to it because I objected to your counterproductive edits. As the discussion on your Talk page shows, you sought outside opinions and no one agrees with your edits. In a piece of classic Wikipedia pettiness, instead of simply reverting your unneeded Brannigan edits and being done with it, you went back to the Brannigan page to delete it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They didnt agree with your edit either so whats your point? And again, my nom is perfectly legit. I didn't nominate it to spite you but believe what you'd like LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't agree with my point? Are you kidding? Both people you invited to comment disagreed with your deletion of all unused parameters, and I see you went back and re-added a lot of them to the page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy said "don't leave all the blank parameters in, but don't remove them all, either", and Montana said "I agree with Andy, relevant blank parameters should be left in. If something is completely not useful, it can be removed". So what part is them agreeing with you? And I agreed with them and added back 4 commonly used parameters. Are you trying to be argumentative? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I objected to you deleting all unused parameters on Brannigan's page, then you insisted it was the right thing to do, then you invited comment and both people who replied said you were wrong to delete any parameters that might be used in the future. But they didn't agree with me? That's really funny. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm done arguing, unless it's about the deletion discussion of her article then no more about what you think I did or didn't do. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has been in question since 2011 and it has not been improved, no has she seemed to have done anything that would make her more notable. Holding a number briefcase really does not seem all that notable. Per nomination, fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Please note that the nominator misrepresented the number of sources in this article, claiming only "1 reliable source" when in fact the article has sources at NBC.com, The New York Times, SI.com and The (Auburn) Citizen, plus links to video of a national TV commercial, a 90-second feature segment on the national TV show Inside Edition (which is entirely about the subject of this AfD) and a video at Funny or Die. It is unclear why the nominator claimed there was only "1 reliable source" but all seven (7) of the preceding sources fit Wikipedia's definition of that phrase. Unfortunately, it appears at least a couple of the voters relied on the nominator's description, as they didn't mention, let alone address, the multiple sources referenced or embedded in the article. Thank you. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Note The SI article is a mere mention of her with 2 sentences about her "John D., of Portland, Maine, says, "Hey, Jimmy, has Kelly Brannigan made LLOD yet? Check out her pics!" She hasn't been the LLOD yet and I did check out her pics. Now, she's the LLOD" (That is literally all it says) I hardly find that worth mentioning. The New York Times article is about her tattoo removal. You base that off her needing her own article? The article is also just a mention of her and not entirely about her. Out of 25 paragraphs, she's in 4. The Auburn Pub is 1 reliable source about her. But that's it. She doesn't have any other significant coverage past that. Which fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response proves that you don't understand what "reliable source" means, which is also clear from your comments at the Amal Alamuddin AfD, where you oddly claimed the New York Daily News, Daily Mail, Radar Magazine, and Us Weekly don't count as reliable sources, and where you were chastised by other users for deleting an ABC News source for apparently similar reasons. A story doesn't have to be interesting in order to count as a "reliable source." A story also doesn't need to be exclusively about a subject in order to count as a "reliable source." Whether a subject is mentioned in 4 paragraphs or 40, The New York Times still counts as a "reliable source" for that subject. Likewise, being featured pictorially at SI.com counts as a "reliable source", whether the photo is accompanied by 2 sentences or 20 sentences. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where I oddly claimed? New York Daily News, Daily Mail, Radar Magazine, and Us Weekly aren't reliable sources, they are all gossip sites. That much was proven so again, what is your point? And the editor who said that removing the source was unacceptable also admitted to not knowing what kind of information to add, which is why I removed the information in the first place, it had nothing to do with the source. And I mention the SI article because notability is having more than just a "mere mention" which is exactly what the article is, so it doesn't help towards your argument that she's notable. Which she isn't. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Wikipedia no longer considers the New York Daily News to be a reliable source? Since when? Can you post a link to that? Just like in the discussion over deleting unused template parameters, you seem incapable of accurately describing reality. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So by being upset over this article being up for deletion, you've now resorted to personal attacks. Nice. But let me break this down for you:

New York Daily News is self proclaimed "Find breaking US news, local New York news coverage, sports, entertainment news, celebrity gossip, autos, videos and photos". Celebrity Gossip - there's your key. You can read more here - WP:GOSSIP.
Daily Mail - numerous discussions about how unreliable it is this one involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and this one about stopping use of the Daily Mail.
Radar Online is considered an "American entertainment and gossip website" on Wikipedia. Again, gossip, not reliable.
Us Weekly is self proclaimed "Us Weekly: Celebrity News, Celebrity Gossip and Pictures". There's that Celebrity Gossip again.

LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Pointing out your mistakes isn't a "personal attack." Above, you said it was "proved" that the New York Daily News isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. Where's the link to Wikipedia's position on that? Also, you're incorrect if you think having a gossip columnist or a gossip section renders an entire newspaper or Web site as unreliable. That's dead wrong. You simply don't know what you're talking about. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem incapable of accurately describing reality" - personal attack, it's no longer about the deletion discussion but your opinion about how I'm incapable of doing something. "You simply don't know what you're talking about." - another personal attack, making it about me and not the discussion. If you continue, I will report you to WP:ANI for your comments that you seem to be making simply because I nominated this article for deletion. That kind of a behavior is unacceptable, so again, make it about the discussion and not about me or any other editor. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice you didn't address the content of my comments above. You're dead wrong about the New York Daily News not being a reliable source, and you're dead wrong about the other sources on the above list. Report me to whomever you want; I don't care. You're just trying to play the victim in order to change the subject away from your obvious errors above. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that you were the one that brought up the references from a completely different discussion, the point of reliable sources wasn't being addressed here, it was about the notability of the subject, and having significant coverage, which she still doesn't have. You bought in the other discussion and like I said I pointed out to you that the Daily Mail isn't used as a reliable source per these discussions 1, 2 and 3. Radar is definitely not used and the debate about NYDN and US Weekly are still debated. But bringing up another deletion discussion is just WP:WAX, stick to this discussion. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. In your statement nominating this page for deletion, you claimed the page has only "1 reliable source", which was incorrect then and remains incorrect now. The "reliable source" issue started here, not on some other page. I just happened to notice you were making the same mistake elsewhere. You also said it had been "proved" that the New York Daily News was an unreliable source, which was incorrect then and remains incorrect now (as you seem to be admitting). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that much was proven, about the unreliability of Daily Mail and of Radar, many editors agree on the unreliability of NYDN and US Weekly, so it's not like I'm alone on it. As far as the references you mentioned, I wasn't debating the reliability of the SI reference, I was telling you that a mere mention isn't considered significant coverage and therefor cannot be held as a reasonable source when debating notability. The NBC source, while reliable is also a primary source and per WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources", so you're not helping your case when your few reliable sources are 1 primary and 1 secondary. If that's it, then it lacks significant coverage - which fails WP:GNG, which is what I have been saying the entire time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you said it was "proved" that the New York Daily News was an unreliable source, not that some other editors happened to agree with you. Also, again, you misrepresented the extent of the reliable sources in the Brannigan article. You didn't say the page has six or seven reliable sources but they don't constitute significant coverage. Instead, you claimed the page had only "1 reliable source", which is how this debate got started. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I'm telling you now and still, her lack of significant coverage fails general notability guidelines, which is how I started this nomination off. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you "started this nomination off" with either a blatant error or blatant dishonesty, claiming only "1 reliable source" when the article has six or seven. Let's be clear about that. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of my nominations says "Fails WP:GNG." My argument hasn't changed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 14 May 2014 (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. Although there is argument about ambassadors and notability, the overall discussion leads to keeping this article the panda ₯’ 23:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lucien Bobinski

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

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. All I could find is one line mentions, nothing in depth. He was also an assistant trade commissioner but again coverage is one line mentions. No in depth coverage of actual achievements. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the Canadian Ambassador to such major and important countries as Saudi Arabia and the Philippines is certainly in itself a demonstration of notability. Not surprisingly is took only seconds to find in-depth coverage of this person, even decades after his ambassadorships.[11][12][13][14]--Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the last 2 sources are not in depth and merely confirm he was an ambassador, the 3rd source is about the value of golf in his life and not about his career or achievements as an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not discriminate against coverage of a person on other aspects of a person's life. There could be an article called "Edward Lucien Bobinski is the Worst Golfer On Earth" and that would still be considered acceptable coverage per WP:GNG. You're actually making a good case to expand the article incorporating the golf content. Just the first two sources, if either one were the only source, that would still be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG. The last two sources, while one shorter than the other, combined with all the others demonstrate easily passing the threshold of "significant" coverage. Although the first and second source give plenty of significant coverage, there doesn't have to be one very in-depth source. WP:GNG even states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not actually all that likely to be a very senior ambassadorial positions (Canada's top tier of postings would be Washington, NATO, the UK, Japan, France, etc, and not Saudi Arabia and especially not the Philippines) and the sourcing is rather thin. As such I see no reason to assume that WP:BIO is met here. As I've noted in previous AfDs, most ambassadors from Western-type countries are actually mid to lower-upper ranking public servants and have little public profile and it's not sensible to assume that they're notable. Only a small proportion of ambassadors actually hold senior positions in their ministry and/or have a strong public profile. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors between major countries are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are again inventing your own criterion for notability. As seen here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Andrigo, this poor reasoning doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm expressing my opinion, just like you are. Shall we look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Browne? How about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Levin (diplomat)? My reasoning seemed to be supported there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Browne was kept because of the sources provided, hardly because of your reasoning. your reasoning is like me saying "all senior policeman are notable", there is no WP notability criterion that says that, but if I were to keep peddling this it must make it notable? AfDs are discussion of how articles meet notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are a strong supporter of Wikipedia being a monolithic bureaucracy in which everything is bound by rigidly applied rules. However, luckily it isn't. These are discussions and many are decided by opinion. I have expressed my opinion, you have expressed yours, someone else will decide on the consequences. Like it or not, that's how afd works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make ambassadors inherently notable, do it the proper way and gain consensus for a change of WP:BIO for ambassadors, even your claim of "major" countries is subject to POV. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're saying "we need a rule". No we don't. We're having a discussion. WP:BIO effectively says absolutely bugger all about ambassadors. Their retention or not is purely down to opinions expressed in AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is normal practice in the absence of a specific notability criterion for an occupation for a person to satisfy WP:BIO. You haven't even demonstrated this person meets WP:BASIC. Instead citing "ambassadors of major countries are notable" This has basically zero bearing in meeting notabilit, especially when it's POV what major countries . In the term spent arguing here you could have looked for sources to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wynndel Property Management

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

I don't think that this company meets WP:CORP. Most of the content (and sources) are about two developments that they own, but as far as I can tell, there has been no coverage of the company itself whatsoever. It's almost certainly written by their PR agency. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Effectively a promotional article about a firm's developments, prices, etc. I am not finding substantial coverage about the firm itself to indicate that it is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per AllyD nothing substantial, promotional, not notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

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

This group does not appear to be notable (WP:ORG, WP:GNG). It gets a lot of hits in obviously unusable sources, a few trivial mentions that don't pass "significant." SPLC has identified it as a hate group, but I don't think SPLC sources alone can hold up an article. I also don't think that its leader's recent comments about shooting liberal academics are more than a news event. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep C-FAM holds Special Consultative Status with the United Nations, and recently organized a conference with the current Papal ambassador to the UN.GLAAD devotes an entry to Ruse and C-FAM on its Commentator Accountability Project (CAP). GLADD and SPLC find Ruse/C-FAM to be notable (nevermind C-FAM's UN status). That should be enough. Many orgs with far lower profiles maintain wikis. This is a no-brainer.Defensor1956 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a non-profit organization. It seems like a petty dispute. RedThunderbird625 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close per the still-accurate analysis/consensus at the prior AFD. Deletion proposal seems to be an offshoot of a content dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A keep close four years ago is not grounds for a speedy close now. If you think it's notable, make that argument. I don't, because I don't think the sources out there constitute significant coverage, and no one produced anything better when I asked on the talk page a week ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it can be, Notability is not temporary, and an almost-everybody-but-the-nominator, nearly unanimous discussion reaching consensus that coverage met the GNG is compelling, especially given a nomination that's just a hand-waving dismissal of sources rather than a well-reasoned analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What kind of sources would the critic find suitable? Eggloff (talk)EggloffEggloff (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Washington Post work for you? The New York Times? How about Buzzfeed? Eggloff (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)EggloffEggloff (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple press articles mentioned in the article. Quoting from one of the references: "Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a non-governmental organization that specializes in assisting United Nations (U.N.) delegations to negotiate U.N. resolutions, treaties and conventions." With credentials like that, the suggestion of it being non-notable is dubious at best. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few: From the Washington Post: "Leading Catholic conservatives reacted to the new guide with disdain. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute in Washington, called it "a blatant attempt to convince Catholics that they can vote for candidates who are wrong on the primary human rights issue of our time, which is abortion." ^[1]

From the New York Times: "Of course, these views are hardly mainstream. For every Rod Dreher, the Orthodox Christian blogger, and meat-eater, who recently wrote a respectful post about Dr. Camosy and the others, or Andrew Sullivan, the Catholic blogger who also praised Dr. Camosy, there may be an Austin Ruse. Writing in Crisis, a Catholic magazine, in October, he called Dr. Camosy’s views “deeply offensive.”^[2]

From BuzzFeed: "But Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, an advocacy group that opposes LGBT and abortion rights in international agreements, said LGBT advocates are scapegoating the Holy See when in reality there is broad-based support for excluding sexual orientation and gender identity language.

“The Holy See is an easy target but the fact of the matter is there is no real interest in accepting [sexual orientation and gender identity] language in U.N. documents,” Ruse said. “Opposition to [this] language is widespread and includes nations from every continent. I cannot speak for the Holy See but from experience over years at the U.N., the Holy See is nothing more or less than a part of a coalition of states advancing what they believe is right.”^[3]

- Actually, these are exactly the sort of trivial coverage that doesn't confer notability, as I explained in my post up there. Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Buzzfeed is only the 43rd largest website in the country and the 124th largest in the world ^[4] What's more, Lester Feder, who handles the LGBT beat for Buzzfeed came from Politico and is one of the most notable journalists covering that beat, particularly from an international angle. He uses C-FAM's leader on a regular basis. And what of the New York Times and Washington Post? If C-FAM were not notable enough for an article, you would suspect it would not be the subject of coverage in two of the most influential newspapers in the world. One wonders if your political views aren't coming into play here. Eggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)EggloffEggloff (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - User:Roscelese is a well known type here. See her Userpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.75.193 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.75.193 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep not an a+ notability, but clearly passes GNG with multiple 3rd party sources writing dedicated articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it's commonly quoted, appears quite influential as shown in the many books which discuss it.[15]--Loomspicker (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly this is headed towards a keep regardless, but I do hope the closing admin will note the number of obvious sockpuppets here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Liberation Front

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

A facebook page and a single "local interest" story in the paper is not sufficient to establish notability for this one-man movement. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: adopt rationale above. No need to encourage fringe elements. Quis separabit? 12:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor local campaign, no evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Steam5 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabani's School of Accountancy

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

~~No evidence that this is a degree granting secondary educational institution. The sources mostly fail WP:RS. I'm having a hard time finding anything that really rings the notability bell.~~ Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD nom based on added content clearly establishing degree granting nature as well as comment below by Necrothesp. Suggest Speedy Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the article and the institution's website claim that it offers bachelors' degrees. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (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 and history merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansten Samuelstuen

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

This person is already described in article Arnsten Samuelstuen. That article is shorter. Żyrafał (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an article that duplicates an existing article, and rename Arnsten Samuelstuen to Ansten Samuelstuen. Shame that the person who corrected the first name in 2010 did not know how to move a page & depressing that no subsequent editor has thought to do so.TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article for WP:CSD#G6 to enable Arnsten Samuelstuen to be moved to this title. I believe a history merge may be required, but I will leave that up to the reviewing admin to decide. This article (Ansten) only has 3 edits, one of which was to add the AfD tag. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Herdman

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

Delete: Non-notable per WP:1E; also I sense some POV-pushing. Same rationale as the AFDs for Kevin Heatley and McKenna and Bowen killings. Notability not derived from victimhood. Again, there were almost 3600 deaths during the Troubles~~and to select a few and omit the others should not be acceptable, especially on this encyclopedia.~~ and to select some as sufficiently notable to have their own articles is inevitabe and unavoidable for us flawed humans. This is understandable, particularly for those who may be closer to the events than others, but these instincts can't go uncountered, especially on this encyclopedia. Mantras such as "hierarchy of victimhood" and "selective condemnation", whose provenance, incidentally, I despise, are sometimes useful to acknowledge. Fringe news sources should not get any undue weight, either. But gird your loins everyone, this may get ugly. Quis separabit? 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunatley it doesnt appear to meet notability criteria. This may be an important piece of information for the local communities but without citations and references to back this up it doesnt come up to notable status on the scale Wikipedia references Amortias (T)(C) 21:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Herdman's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2014 (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarosław Leitgeber

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

There do not appear to be sufficient sources (either in the article or google) to establish this person's notability. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wielkopolski Słownik Biograficzny is the most important biographical dictionary for this part of Poland. He got also a biography in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, the most important Polish biographical dictionary. Kmicic (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an entry in a biographical dictionary meets the requirements of WP:BASIC and WP:DICTIONARY. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case: yes. Kmicic (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless article drastically improves, based on rationale below.

Kmicic: I did a Google search and came upon only Polish language links. I know that an article with only foreign language links is not disqualified from being posted to English language Wikipedia. However, the results of translations I was able to obtain at Google Translate as written are meagre and do not establish notability per se, IMO. If you can expand the article, then fine. References to his father and brother are equally non-notable and add nothing to the article but redlinks. Good Luck. Quis separabit? 14:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is normal stub. Polski Słownik Biograficzny contains most important people in Polish history, so it is sure that Jarosław Leitgeber is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Information about notable family mameber is important information. Kmicic (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, his "family members" have not been established as nontable in any way, nor has he yet, based on the info provided here. If you wnat the article to saty you have to prove he is notable. The onus is on you as the article creator. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two other Leitbergers has also articles in Polski Słownik Biograficzny (PSB), which means that they are one of most important people in history of Poland, selected by editors PSB. For anybody who know something about history of Poland it is obvious. If for you no, its YOURS problem. Kmicic (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kmicic: "they are one of most important people in history of Poland" -- really? If that were the case I suspect that considerably more information would be available online about Jarosław and his family, and that the Jarosław Leitgeber article would have been created long ago. In any event, again, you have to prove the subject is notable. Quis separabit? 18:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Just looking at this,[16] I can see that a lot can be said about this writer-turned-publisher from the partitioned Poland but if you start with a stub no wonder you end up here. Good luck with further development, Poeticbent talk 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be the case, but for notability to be gauged by editor in English-language Wikipedia some translation is going to be needed. It's not anyone else's responsibility but the editor who believes the article should not be deleted to provide salient backup for that position in the vernacular. Quis separabit? 18:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Poeticbent talk 17:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: much improved. Prima facie case made. Dziekujemy bardzo. Quis separabit? 22:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in Polski Słownik Biograficzny which is an automatic notability-pass for Poland-related biographies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 13 May 2014 (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Amy Sweeney

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

Subject is covered by reliable sources in the context of only one event. Although 9/11 was a significant event itself, Sweeney played only a minor role in it. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:iE; mirror rationale as that applied to Kevin Heatley immediately below. One rarely derives genuine notability from victimhood or death, no matter how tragic. I thought these sort of 9/11 cases had all been taken care of by now. Quis separabit? 14:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in the first AfD a year ago, the subject passes GNG easily. What has changed that requires reconsideration of the first AfD discussion? Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GNG, IMO. Frankly, without meaning to speak in any way less than respectfully of the dead, her (Sweeney)'s actions simply do not rise to the same level as those of such passengers as Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer or Jeremy Glick. Quis separabit? 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as IMHO passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think her part of his have generated enough press to count. Besides, the previous afd discussion resulted in a keep decision. Has something changed since then? Bali88 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this nomination for real?. Passes basic WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna and Bowen killings

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

Delete: - Tragic deaths in a brutal most likely sectarian killing, but non-notable under 1E and GNG; same rationale as for Kevin Heatley AFD, below. Editor who created this article appears determined to create articles for whichever victims of the Troubles that he or she elects to create. There were almost 3600 deaths in the last installment of the Troubles and they all have a story, and almost are all named at CAIN. We cannot create an article for each one, and these tragic deaths do not necessarily qualify for NOTABILITY based on victimhood or the particular circumstances of this death. Also note that the article itself is an example of blatant POV-pushing. Quis separabit? 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The death of which 12 or 13 year-old? Are you sure you have nominated the article you intended? RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rashers. The 12 or 13 year old, of course, is Kevin Heatley (see directly below); as the rationales are almost identical when I was compiling and formatting I evidently transposed some text. Rewritten. Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate as deaths are these dont appear to meet notability criteria, as per previous comments the articles from this user are not coming up to notable status. Will link to guidance to assist in future articles Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The killings are notable and adequately documented, even if the people is not.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining why you think this killing is notable "even if the people is not"? Having a source (even a valid source) does not confer notability per se, btw. Under Eastmain's logic, the floodgates would be potentially open to thousands of article (as Death of ..... or Killing of ....) from any of the myriad websites, unbiased or otherwise, online, for anyone, just a few examples here: killed on 9/11, or during the Troubles, or in Vietnam, or by police, or executed by a state or government, or featured on 20/20 or Dateline or Nightline, or with an IMDb bio, or almost any attention catching story about almost any conflict, weather disaster, publicized personal tragedy, etc. (WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE) Quis separabit? 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments presented above. User Eastmain does not state why the article is notable and nothing in the article shows notability. Do we need to start an article for every victim of this conflict. --Dmol (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and then some. While a killing can be notable even if the victims were not before death, this doesn't seem to have gotten much ongoing coverage, in reliable sources. This is certainly sad, but literally thousands of people were killed during The Troubles - as would my grandparents had they not gotten out in time. Even if this stub were kept, it is such a mess that it would have to be completely re-written. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc. This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion. If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different. Nothing does. They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years. --Dmol (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Saying again what I have said in several other current AfD debates: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although these deaths were a tragedy the people themselves were not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Heatley

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

Delete per WP:1E as non-notable. Utterly non-notable under 1E and GNG (basically identical rationale as that for the McKenna and Bowen killings; see immediately above). Editor who created this article appears determined to create articles for whichever victims of the Troubles that he or she elects to create. There were almost 3600 deaths in the last installment of the Troubles and they all have a story, and almost are all named at CAIN. We cannot create an article for each one, and this tragic death of a 12 or 13 year old does not qualify for NOTABILITY based on victimhood or the particular circumstances of this death. Also note that the article itself is an example of blatant POV-pushing. Quis separabit? 13:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems notability is not met per WP:1E (only notable for one event). Is there no possible merge or redirect target? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls foul of WP:NOTE. Have posted guidance on users talk page on how to find guidance on making sure articles meet notability criteria in future Amortias (T)(C) 21:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent arguments put forward by nominator. Some of the editor's other articles have been speedied. --Dmol (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The killing is notable and adequately documented, even if the person is not. Move to Killing of Kevin Heatley. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you advise WHY you think the killing was notable.--Dmol (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently oppose creating Killing of Kevin Heatley. It is contrary to what constitutes notability for Wikipedia purposes and unfair to anyone who has unjustly been deprived of his or her life in either natural or unnatural (man made) circumstances. Having a source (even an impeccable one) does not confer notability per se, btw. Under Eastmain's logic, the floodgates would be potentially open to thousands of article (as Death of ..... or Killing of ....), from a the myriad online websites dedicated to hagiographical and political agendas, even social media, for anyone, just to name a few examples, say, killed on 9/11, or during the Troubles or in Vietnam, or executed by a state or a government, or featured on 20/20 or Dateline, or with an IMDb or IBDb bio, or most conflicts, weather disasters, publicized personal tragedies, etc. (WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE) Quis separabit? 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc. This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion. If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different. Nothing does. They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years. --Dmol (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeating the comment I have made in several other ongoing debates: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Heatley's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2014 (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. Article needs to be moved to a better title and needs cleanup, but that is not for AfD to discuss/decide. Merge as suggested by Colapeninsula is also an option, but that is also something that can be decided on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of charity songs for Hurricane Katrina relief

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

Indiscriminate crufty bollocks. Laun chba ller 08:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very discriminate crufty bollocks. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I call that indiscriminate per WP:DISCRIMINATE because it just looks like a random list of songs pertaining to Hurricane Katrina. Some of them don't even have articles!--Laun chba ller 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly non-notable songs/artists. And now to play "Rock Me Like a Hurricane" while I watch that Sideshow Bob episode. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually this is quite a good list-article topic and/or a category. Per the guideline wp:CLT, categories and lists and navigation templates are mutually supportive. I expect that sources will exist clearly to support the individual items, and the topic of the category also. I see no assertion of wp:BEFORE being met; the nom is merely, well, an ass-ertion of bollocks.... :) --do ncr am 01:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram. A better title would be nice, but I can't think of one. I am One of Many (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable ~~cruft~~ shite. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any of the references (such as some of them are) mentioning the charity aspect at all. Only one or two even make the unsourced claim. They're all works about the disaster. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it should be renamed to List of Hurricane Katrina-themed songs or similar, as I agree it is not documented that origianlly listed songs or those added by my contributions are actually charity songs. It is a notable topic, though, with numerous sources about the set of songs, IMHO. About a Requested Move that is for Talk page discussion, not AFD. --do ncr am 03:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching within Wikipedia on "List of songs about" brings me to a lot of similar list-articles, e.g. List of songs about the Vietnam War, and many more, generally within Category:Lists of songs about a topic (category which I just added to the list-article). This is a fine list-article topic, there are enough songs to make a substantial list, and there is coverage specifically on the topic of songs about Katrina. I voted "Keep" further above, already. --do ncr am 23:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inherently biased. Implies the ol' "appeal to pathos" and Wikipedia is not soapbox or means of promotion. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A large percentage of songs are unreferenced, the songs listed as being critical of the response could potentially be considered libelious if no reference has been cited to back up this claim. Amortias (T)(C) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable event that has a large amount of songs written about/for it. Article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. Could also use a better title, as someone stated above. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's an argument for notability of the topic.[17][18][19] Notable songs for charity/fundraising/awareness could be merged to Hurricane Katrina disaster relief#Cultural and sporting responses. Notable songs criticising response could be merged to Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Article is currently in poor state and non-notable, unreferenced songs should be removed; but keeping would allow clean-up and consideration whether to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up/merge as Colapeninsula suggests. The current list isn't good, but given that musical responses were a significant part of the cultural response to Katrina, this is a better approach than deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2014 (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 Luverdense Esporte Clube. The policy-based discussion is to redirect a minor stadium to its club the panda ₯’ 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Municipal Passo das Emas

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Only one source. A Google failed to turn up anything that rings the Notability bell. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brasilian stadium who meets the Campeonato Brasileiro Série B(fully professional league) criteria. The stadium has an initial capacity of 10,000 people.

I am not sure what the (fully professional league) criteria is or how it applies to a stadium, but it's possible I may have missed something. Could you provide a link to the relevant guideline or policy in the English Wikipedia? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luverdense Esporte Clube. Giant Snowman 11:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stadium currently hosts matches about a fully professional league (Campeonato Brasileiro Série B) so it respects the notablity and it isn't a small stadium.(10.000 spectators).

The team is notable so I assume that if a team is notable, then his stadium should be as well.--Lglukgl (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not transfer and is not inherited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stadium notable enough, just like Estádio do Canindé, Estádio Anacleto Campanella, and others. Also, this stadium is very well known here in Brazil, despite the club and the stadium being from a small town (Luverdense defeated Corinthians last year in this stadium). Cheers, MYS 77 ^{talk with me ☺} 14:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know how one would even start to think that a stadium of 10,000 for a team in a fully professional league isn't notable. It doesn't take long to find a very recent newspaper article about the stadium [21], I'm sure I'd quickly find more if I had access to newspapers older than 30 days. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments; we generally find stadiums like this to be deserving of their own articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Luverdense Esporte Clube. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Weissmann

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

The article seems to be about some philosopher, but more likely it is about some fictional character (judging by his comparison with Jára Cimrman). I think it does not fulfill our notability criteria. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for letting me know. I created this page about Weissmann because I studied him last semester at University on my course on Contemporary Philosophy. I read works by him as well of Schweinsteiger and Nuelend. I did not include myself that mention to Jára Cimrman, nor did I know who he was (or rather apparently wasn't) until it was included on the article. I can provide sources and I ask this page not to be deleted. Rodrigomvaz

Sorry, but the info about Jára Cimrman was in the original version of the article, which was written by you, and you also added it to the article about Jára Cimrman. However, if you think the article should be kept, it is necessary to add reliable sources that would prove Weissman's notability and that would help to verify the information in the article. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - The German language article appears to be better sourced: "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Wei%C3%9Fmann". I suggest somebody who is adept at translation works at integrating content from it. That appears to be a different Adolf, I can't find any sources myself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that is somebody different. Though I cannot speak German, I understood that German Wikipedia Weissmann was born in 1873, while "our" Weisman was born in 1898. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my German is pretty poor but I thought it might have been him as the words critic and music came up in the lede. However, having scanned it a little closer, I noticed the discrepancy in birth dates too --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of this other Adolf's books come up when his name is searched. If anything he should have an article instead --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is about a fictionalised writer, and I can't find anything on him on JSTOR or Google Books, then the fact that there is a music critic with the same name could be a conscious effort in order to further mislead those looking for sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - No sources - I agree that this is most likely a fictional person --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, No sources to be found. Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It is high time we delete all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. I disagree with John Pack Lambert re unsourced articles in general (there are many on notable topics, left over from days when we were lax about such things) but unsourceable articles are a different matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete No doubt this is a hoax article. The last paragraph is deliberate nonsense. No sources are not a surprise for this hoax. I am One of Many (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2014 (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} 09:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jämijärvi Comp Air 8 crash

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation incident. ...William 12:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contested PROD with the comment "This was all over the Finnish news when it happened. Several newspapers devoted over 10 pages solely to this aviation accident." I'm sure this accident was a big deal in Finland, but there has been no "widespread significant coverage". Outside Finland there were some (not many) news reports about the crash on 20 and 21 April, but since then nothing. YSSYguy (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the relatively high death toll, this accident is not notable enough to sustain a stand alone article on en:Wiki. It should be mentioned in the article on the airfield and maybe also in the article on the aircraft type. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with previous comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2014 (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. Obvious consensus to keep the panda ₯’ 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpEdNews

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

This article was deleted via AfD, endorsed at DRV, userfied, worked on, and has now been moved into article space again even though it continues to lack multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that User:MichaelQSchmidt found, linked for you, and analysed in considerable detail at the DRV, were:-
1) http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A
2) http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709
The problem is not that there aren't sources, it's that they're not actually linked in the article. And this is because Thargor Orlando nominated it for deletion within a few hours of it being returned to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why an article that isn't ready to be in mainspace is being put in mainspace, but the problem is that there are not multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability. The newsbank piece is literally one sentence in a directory-style op-ed about different websites, and the financial express piece is similarly so, with a four sentence paragraph more about swine flu essays than the site itself. It's not notable, and we don't have the sources to build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your role to decide whether the article is "ready to be in mainspace".
This is Wikipedia, where we're allowed to work on things in the open. It's dangerous and stupid to do otherwise. When we have unfinished articles in the mainspace, and tagged articles and one-sentence articles and other obviously amateurish things, we're openly displaying what Wikipedia really is. If we hide the unfinished articles and the obvious problems, in userspace or wherever you want them to be, then we're presenting ourselves as a more professional website than we really are. Wikipedia already has a serious problem with people trusting us far more than they should. There are strong ethical reasons to have material that's still under construction on view in the mainspace, and I think it's dangerously wrong to pretend otherwise.
As for the sources, thanks to MichaelQSchmidt's work they're plain for anyone to see, so I'm very confident that your nomination on those grounds will fail.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just surprised you moved an article into mainspace that doesn't meet our inclusion standards, but that's just me. I would have thought you would have actually kept it userfied until it met our inclusion standards, given the result of the previous AfD and DRV. As for the sources, it's clear they're trivial mentions, so hopefully better ones come up. As it stands, it clearly doesn't meet the inclusion standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article clearly doesn't meet your inclusion standards. Whether it meets the project's inclusion standards is not for you to decide.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically true, although no arguments or evidence to show the error in my claims have been presented thus far. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain how those two sources you linked above are "non-trivial." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Wikipedia's processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. The record should show that you're unwilling to show how a one sentence line and one paragraph about the website in directory-style newspaper clippings are "non-trivial." I'm not as inflexible on this issue as you think. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall (talk · contribs), the sources were found and analyzed by me, not by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs).
Thank you, S Marshall and MichaelQSchmidt, for adding the sources to the article to demonstrate that it passes the general notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I'm sorry for getting that wrong, Cunard (talk · contribs).—S Marshall T/C 13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability now sufficiently established by the sources. Information about this belongs here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources that establish notability, then? We've been down this road before, and nothing new has been offered. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Added signature from here. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. A website containing articles written by persons expert or notable in their fields, itself quoted in and referred to in multiple reliable sources meets WP:RSOPINION and WP:USEBYOTHERS even without these other sources not devoting articles solely dedicated to being of or about it. That reliable sources feel it worth mentioning or quoting, we do Wikipedia readers a dis-service by ignoring its existence within its field. In a balanced encyclopedia, all views must be covered, even if not respected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:BLUD? More (easily found) are now sourcing the article you nominated, and more yet are available through diligent before in a modified Find sources. In your third attempt to delete this article topic, and while WP:JNN, WP:BELONG, WP:PPOV, are not valid deletion rationales, after some WP:BEFORE, I did minor work on the topic you appear so worried about being part of a balanced encyclopedia. Is it that you feel the established guidelines covering the written work of experts and use of a site by other sources may be ignored? If the article is itself be kept neutral, it can be improved over time and through regular editing, and the project is improved by the balance offered by its sourced inclusion. In referring to WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT, I note that immediate perfection is not required with ANY article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay is noted, but the issue is that the article continues to lack the pieces necessary to demonstrate notability, and continues to lack the reliable sources necessarily to sustain an article. This isn't about imperfection, this isn't about any of that, but simply that it's not a noteworthy enough article to justify inclusion and lacks the sources to build an encyclopedia article, and you have yet to offer anything to demonstrate otherwise. It keeps getting nominated because it's not appropriate for inclusion at this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While essays addressed my perception of motivation for your third deletion nomination of this topic within a year, my Keep is dependent upon applicable guideline, NOT essay nor personal opinion. As WP:GNG is not the same sort of mandate as WP:V, ignoring my valid question does not make it go away. So to ask just that portion again... is it that you feel the established guidelines WP:RSOPINION (covering the written work of experts) and WP:USEBYOTHERS (use of a site by other sources) may be ignored in determining whether or not inclusion of an article on this topic could improve this project? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but if you're basing your keep on applicable guidelines, and the guidelines do not match up with the reality of this article, where does that lead us? Your points regarding the reliable source guideline have to do with its use as a source, and is not an article inclusion guideline. What you want to look at is WP:N, WP:WEB, and the like, and perhaps find those notable, reliable sources specifically about the topic to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out it meets WP:WEB and under WP:WEBCRIT, and that guidline reminding that "...notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners." I would think that use by and quotations used in multiple reliable sources meets this criteria. Ii feel sheepish that I overlooked something so obvious. As THAT clinches notability, article content can be carefully supported by information gleaned from OpEdNEws site itself under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions are trivial ones, which is why they don't meet the guideline. Per WP:WEB: "except for...trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site." I don't know how else to explain this to you. It hasn't attracted any real notice, and, as WP:WEB says, "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that ...editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Even with OpEdNews being covered in more-than-trivial manner in multiple books (which can be added over time and through regular editing), we do not that require other sites dedicate lengthy articles solely to the topic of OpEdNews. As you pointed out... and now back-peddle from... just so long as it "has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners", notability is reasonably established. And being established, there is no hurry. We can improve the article content over time and through regular editing right here on Wikipedia under under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG, and those multiple book sources. Seeing your repeated efforts over the last 10 months to remove this article, I expect you will make it a personal mission to (perhaps impatiently) oversee progress and demand immediate perfection when none is expected or required. And if "kept" as a result of this AFD, I expect you will bring the topic back to to AFD a fourth or fifth or sixth time with similar results... so I encourage patience, and will thank you again. Can we at least agree that we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue and so cease this WP:BLUDGEON? Personally, I'd like to hear opinions from others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is established as you say, can you please show the multiple, reliable sources that give this site nontrivial coverage? You claim there are books that do this, can you please cite the ones you believe here for us for review? We don't see eye to eye, but incorrect statements about the alleged sources must be addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... the book search results are kinda obvious if one clicks the proffered links, but being at work at the moment I am unable to scurry out to the nearest university library with access to hard copy book sources. I hope acceptance of WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT and just a little WP:AGF is reasonable? And even with a keep looming, I would appreciate hearing from others. Wouldn't you? And y the way, User:S Marshall did previously point out that non-trivial coverage such as The Intelligencer existed and brief but non-trivial information was contained in such as Financial Express long before I did. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: I've done all this legwork. I've done it months ago. There are no nontrivial mentions in books in your searches, and had you done that search before posting it here, you'd know this. As for the coverage you point out, one is a single sentence, and one is a paragraph, half of which is about a satirical essay. It's the textbook definition of trivial. Yes, I'm hoping others will chime in. I'm hoping those who chime in with a keep can offer up nontrivial sources that conform to our inclusion guidelines, as they are not forthcoming at present. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A greater problem is that your "legwork" was negative... being done only to discredit, not improve... and now "legwork" must counter that faulty legwork claimed to have been done "months ago". WP:IDHT becomes an issue almost of an intent to mislead others when dismissing a 500+ word article by Theresa Katalinas in The Intelligencer as a "satirical essay" or the 165 word multi-sentence piece in The Financial Express as a "one-liner". We do not set the editorial policies of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia nor declare them irrelevant because of a perceived tone or a personal animus. Reliable sources giving coverage are reliable sources giving coverage. Period. We may also look to the verifiable fact that multiple sources outside of Wikipedia have deemed the content of OpEdNews as written by numerous experts worthy enough to be repeated and reported and quoted in their own publications. THAT'S a decent determinant of notability even without OpEdNews itself being a sole and focused topic of that coverage. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for asserting that the local interest piece by Katalinas (which is noted by seeing what section it's in at the bottom) was the single line piece. The single line piece is linked above. The Financial Express piece is what I correctly noted as "a paragraph, half of which is about a satirical essay." This is what we call "trivial coverage." There is no real nontrivial coverage to work with here to support an article or meet our inclusion guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* The Intelligencer is not exactly some unheard-of backwoods-gazette and has passed the test of being a reliable source. You asked for an independent reliable source offering more-than-trivial information about the site and its founder and were given one. That it it began with discussion of a world-interest-issue, can be read world-wide, and yet verifies information about OpEdnews, kinda pokes holes in a spurious claim of "local interest only". Though you might not agree, other editors here might certainly use a little common sense and under the policies WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:NEWSBLOG wonder why so many experts share their experts opinions on the website and why so many, many reliable sources choose to quote OpEdNews or refer to those opinions on their own websites. Even if you personally do not wish it, Wikipedia is not set in stone and occasional exceptions apply. Even if some feel liberal opinions are fringe, in a balanced encyclopedia we can cover cover it neutrally. I hereby apologize to other editors who might swing by and see this back-and-forth as being somewhat pointless. Elucidation was the goal, not oration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I point out the issue with The Intelligencer because it's a local news item. It's trivial even by the points of its own paper and tells us mostly nothing about the site other than basic information. Yes, common sense should be used here, and common sense tells us that no one has found it important to cover this topic in depth, and that it's not sensible to include this in an encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of secondary source coverage. Participation from journalist who is Pulitzer Prize winner, among other notables. — Cirt (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt:, can you please point out the "loads of secondary source coverage," as no one else has so far? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 13#OpEdNews (which I have reproduced below):
- Vacate closure and permit recreation.
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination) was correctly decided in August 2013 because at the time of deletion, no reliable sources were cited in the article and none were mentioned in the AfD debate.
  Vacate closure because I have found two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of OpEdNews:
  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – titled "Bucks Web site grabs piece of the online news market: The highly traveled opednews.com joins the ranks of a growing Web news base", this The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania) article provides in-depth substantial coverage of OpEdNews.
    Author Theresa Katalinas discussed how OpEdNews was launched on February 28, 2003. She wrote that in 2007, OpEdNews had 500,000 visitors a month, a total of 7 million hits, "a bare-bones operation" operated in a "small college student apartment turned office in Newtown Township", 4,500 registered members, 25 volunteer editors, and 500 regular writers.
    Katalinas further noted that OpEdNews in 2007 had an "arsenal of tongue-in-cheek blog entries, editorials, political articles and countless anti-Bush opinion pieces".
  2. http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709^WebCite – titled "What the world is reading", Asavari Singh's May 2009 The Financial Express (India) article provides a paragraph of coverage about OpEdNews:
    Opednews.com
    
    An award-winning political blog that refers to itself as the “the drudge report for progressives”, Opednews has a lengthy section devoted to the swine flu pandemic. The dozens of features range from the latest news to well-considered analyses of the subject (such as “The Real Swine Flu Conspiracy” by neuroscientist John R Moffett) to surreal meanderings like the “Quoth the Pig” series, which uses multimedia and text to ‘express’ the poetic anguish of the much-maligned creature. However, for those who want to hear it straight from the hog’s mouth, satirist Allan Goldstein’s “Swine Flu Hate Speech” is a must-read. He puts himself in the trotters of an indignant pig who proselytises against the “racially” insulting “S word” but with a stoic acceptance of his value in the food chain. “We are being blamed for a virus that has yet to be detected in a single one of our members. Pigs by the million have been slaughtered to no purpose. Good bacon is going to waste.”
    Singh referred to OpEdNews as "[a]n award-winning political blog" that calls itself "the drudge report for progressives".
    He noted that OpEdNews provided in-depth coverage of the swine flu epidemic through "dozens of features". Those features take the form of the "latest news" and "well-considered analyses" and "surreal meanderings". Singh discussed a particular piece by satirist Allan Goldstein whose "Swine Flu Hate Speech" is called a "must-read".
  Analysis of the two articles
  Katalinas' article provides roughly 700 words of coverage of OpEdNews. This is substantial coverage.
  Singh's piece consists of 165 words about OpEdNews and its coverage of the swine flu epidemic in 2009. It also provides significant coverage of OpEdNews.
  These two articles allow OpEdNews to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  Mentions of OpEdNews in other reliable sources
  OpEdNews is also mentioned in other reliable sources. I list them here for completeness for improving the article, but I explicitly note that I am not using them to argue that OpEdNews passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/0F9FF58EA8711C82/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this article by Ed Weiner of Philadelphia Daily News says: "Homegrown (Newtown, Pa.) OpEdNews runs news stories and sharply smart anti-war/anti-Bush opinion pieces; someone's called it the Drudge Report for people who think."
  2. http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11131915^WebCite – Oakland Tribune article: "Stillwater's pieces appear on her blog and on the Web site OpEdNews, which according to an e-mail from editor Rob Kall has 700,000 unique visitors in 200 countries each month."
  3. http://newsitem.com/opinion/former-editor-sues-philadelphia-1.1208520^WebCite – The News-Item article: "A former managing editor for the online newspaper, OpEdNews, has filed suit against the city of Philadelphia and eight of its police officers, accusing them of violating her constitutional rights."
  4. http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-07/news/30253631_1_police-officer-videotape-violent-arrests^WebCite – Philadelphia Media Network article: "In another case Cheryl Biren-Wright, a former managing editor for OpEdNews, was arrested while photographing a protest two years ago outside the Franklin Mills Mall."
  5. http://www.stltoday.com/business/planting-cyber-seeds-monsanto-s-blog-started-last-month-is/article_00373658-1082-59e4-a4bc-e1088e587792.html^WebCite – St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: "Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the company should be allowed to cross-post its blog entries."
  6. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/117CE0758494F940/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this Bucks County Courier Times piece discusses OpEdNews founder Rob Kall.
  User:MichaelQSchmidt
  Experienced editor MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) wrote in an edit summary at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/OEN: "OEN. When improved enough, will request a return and hist merge". I have contacted Michael, asking him to work on the article with Robkall (talk · contribs). The userspace draft User:Robkall/OpEdNews requires significant work to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and verifiability policy, time which I am unable to provide at the moment. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV endorsed the closure, and these are not non-trivial mentions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require entire tomes dedicated to any topic for it to be found notable through enough lessor more-than-trivial sources as offered by User:Cunard. The DRV result was as it was simply because no reversible flaw was found in that AFD closure. The DRV was not itself an AFD discussing notability, but when editors speaking up at the DVR spoke about the site meeting inclusion criteria, an improved article was eventually returned to mainspace per WP:CCC. And yes, I fully expect you to disagree here, to completely ignore the fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables, to completely ignore that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere, and to fully disagree with yet again with any who does not see it your way. Is this perhaps a sign of a pointy renomination? Will there be a moment where you would consider WP:DTS? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's continually telling that it's not that there's a strong argument for keeping it being presented, but just a lot of essays and bad faith. I don't understand the need for this non-noteworthy subject to have an article, but I'm certainly not assuming anything about those who are advocating here. Very strange. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really ?? You have made it a special point to question every keep. Would you respond in kind to any "deletes" should they arrive before this is discussion is closed? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the deleted be based on the same misguided reasoning? If so, then yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As your own refusal to accept growing consensus is telling, I think you'd happily support any reasoning as narrow as your own... ignoring that while policy is rarely mutable, guidelines are written on a far softer pallet. One of our cornerstone policies for dealing with them is WP:IAR. Improving this project for its readers takes precedence over any personal feeling that the topic of a website verifiable as sharing the opinions of notable experts and verifiable as being widely quoted and referred to in numerous reliable sources.... in somehow not worthy of being written of within these pages to enlighten our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the project is that articles lacking multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources do not get articles. The "growing consensus" existed long before I got here. If you don't like the inclusion guidelines of the project, you're free to change them, but saying we should ignore them isn't a quality argument, and one hopes that others who join this discussion and/or the closing administrator will do their due diligence regarding the weakness of the keep arguments in the context of previous discussions and the site policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussions just like this to decide one-by-one when there is disagreement. And a closer will decide whether or not other's interpretation of guideline and common sense are valid, not you. If the decision goes against you (as seems likely), I would hope you will respect the consensus result reached at THIS discussion for THIS topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that the disagreement is not that there are or are not multiple, non-trivial sources, but that you think it shouldn't matter. That is a problem. And if this somehow survives AfD, it will likely be nominated again, either by me or by someone else, unless those multiple, non-trivial sources surface. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was very carefully explained by Cunard that more-than-trivial coverage exists and was offered. The sadly "funny thing" is your refusal to accept that fact and your promise to encourage renomination if consensus closes against your wishes. That is the root problem here. Have a good day. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the nontrivial coverage? Cunard hasn't presented it yet, that user has presented trivial coverage. Where is the nontrivial coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He presented it above and clarified when you claimed in was not SIGCOV. I cannot teach the blind to see. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I pointed out that they were trivial. He has not since responded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014

No need that he do so and User:Cunard is wise to not engage. What I observe took place was his reading your responses to everyone who thought the topic worth being written about here on Wikipedia, followed by his writing a carefully considered opinion and explaining in his comment just how they were not trivial. You disagree, fine. Your repeated claims running counter to the 33-1/2 years of editing experience (372,000+ edits) speaking in support of the article contrary to your 3 years and 10 months (5,400+ edits) notwithstanding, he is not required to respond to a brick wall. A keep seems destined, and I am myself quite tired of my futile attempts to explain. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to continue responding, but your claims that do not match with the policies and guidelines of this project will be taken into effect. No information as to why these are not trivial have been provided, and simply saying "they're not trivial" isn't enough. But this is meant to be a discussion, and you don't want to discuss but simply malign my points, my contributions, and me personally. What does that tell us? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things editors should learn is to respect consensus in discussions and not bludgeon the processes. When any editor feels his the only correct voice in an AFD discussion when a majority of long-experienced editors say otherwise, maybe he needs to accept that it is not his Wikipedia, it is everyone's. Behavioral guideline instructs that is it unhelpful to disrupt the process by beating something to death. That said, and as myself and numerous others have tried hopelessly to explain how your personal definition of "trivial" is not in the true spirit of improving the project, I will respect WP:KETTLE and wait for a close. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Unfortunately, people have bucked consensus by continuing to bring an article back that doesn't meet our guidelines. The discussion will likely have to be relisted because of the bad faith of editors and the lack of addressing the key points regarding the value and breadth of the sources provided. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Not agreeing with a Thargor Orlando point of view is 'not bad faith. But repeatedly and intentionally accusing experienced and respected editors of bad faith could be considered a problematic violation of WP:CIV. Like it or (obviously) not, under WP:WIP even articles seen (by you) as weak can be brought to life and worked on. We're building something something here. There is no project-wide demand for perfection of any article other than one with BLP issues. I encourage you to study and understand why WP:IMPERFECT and WIP exist. And in case you do not understand, an AFD re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the consensus is simply not in your favor nor because others do no wish to argue once their opinions have been made quite clear (even if not you). WP:NPOV is a policy for a reason. Please leave your political leanings outside the door before walking in and muddying up the floors. And by the way... have you ever actually read WP:POINT or WP:BLUD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as yet unanswered...

Do you feel it totally irrelevant the verifiable fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables?
Do you feel it totally irrelevant the verifiable fact that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere?

Perhaps we can stop dancing, and I would certainly hope you will accede to consensus and not nominate a 4th time if or when this is closed as "keep". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those things have nothing to do with the notability of the article, nor do they help build an encyclopedia article, so no to both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh, the dance continues) As the topic can be discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner, these valid questions specifically have to deal with why the topic is worthy of sharing with our readers in some fashion. It is revealing that you feel the questions are about "article" notability, and not about the reasonableness of enlightening our readers on a veriable '"topic". I believe your fourth AFD of this topic will be seen as pointy and tendentious. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be "discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner." The issue with this article is the lack of nontrivial sources that we can use to build an article, thus calling into question the notability. This is not my "POV," this is the requirement of the project on a whole. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial sources have been presented and yet demeaned and dismissed by you... and repeating, Wikipedia does not require entire tomes dedicated to any topic for it to be found notable through enough less-than-substantive yet more-than-trivial sources (as offered by User:Cunard) and though case-by-case consensus. While helpful, all guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". This tells us that guidelines do not overrule POLICY nor common sense nor case-by-case consensus. We need not all agree, but WP:IDHT and WP:BLUD are decent essays. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells us that this topic simply isn't noted enough to sustain an article. No non-trivial sources have been provided, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not common sense to ignore the verifiable fact that the site is built upon the expert opinions of a great number of notables, It is not common sense to ignore the verifiable fact that the site is itself referred to and quoted in numerous reliable sources elsewhere. It is not common sense to demand substantial coverage when we have suitable "significant" coverage you chose to denigrate. It is not common sense to arbitrarily decide that our readers shouldn't be given neutral facts about OpEdNews. The site does not itself have to make headlines or meet your non-guideline requirement for "substantial" coverage as a website. Ignored by you is that reliable sources have been offered that offer the policy mandated neutral verification of facts presented in the article. Wikipedia does not require tomes of coverage. Also ignored by you when carefully explained by Cunard above is that some of these available sources, while not substantive in content are still more-than-trivial in nature... thus meeting the description for such as set by guideline WP:SIGCOV. That said, I have real-world concerns that need my attention. So, bye for now and have a nice day. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "verifiable fact" is that being built on "expert opinions," whatever that means, means nothing to its notability or being able to meet our guidelines for inclusion. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand our policies again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfamiliar are you with WP:RSOPINION or WP:USEBYOTHERS? I cannot teach what someone refuses to learn. Bye. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not article inclusion guidelines, once again. They are about whether something is a useful, reliable source for an article, not whether it should be included. Misusing guidelines does not help your case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and you will definitely disagree yet again, but they can be under WP:COMMONSENSE considerations. Well-meaning as you might be in your stance, you show an unfortunate misunderstanding of just what WP:IAR truly means. Such insistence that one's own viewpoint is the only possible consideration flags in the face of the many policies and guidelines and essays written to build an encyclopedia. Sorry, but you've exhausted me. Closer, have fun with this looooong discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells us this is not a notable web site. Why? It has received basically no notice outside of where it is located. I understand you're exhausted by what's meant to be a discussion, but, unfortunately, when claims are made that run contrary to the facts, questioning must occur. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An illuminating thing said here:

"I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Wikipedia's processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)"

After 7 days, no delete opinions beyond those repeated ad nauseum by the nominator Time to close. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A relisting seems more appropriate given the conduct of some above and the lack of explanation of why non-trivial sources confer notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Marshall was quite correct in his observations and statements, but even in this you seem to misunderstand how the AFD processes work. A re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the discussion consensus is not in your favor, nor because others do no wish to argue ad nauseum when their honest opinions are quite clear to everyone (except you). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one thing that isn't going to impress the closer is the sheer quantity of text we've produced on this very simple matter. I respectfully suggest that you allow Thargor Orlando to have the last word.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was being kind in thinking a relisting may be appropriate, as the consensus of the site is clear on this matter even if the waters of this discussion have been muddied. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not find significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Almost all of the references I was able to check that are currently cited in the article provide trivial coverage of the topic, as a minor part of a single sentence. The two articles that much of the above discussion seem to focus on are from The Intelligencer and Financial Express. I agree the first provides significant coverage; the second is a single brief paragraph. Even if I accepted both as significant coverage, one of the arguments above is that these two sources thereby satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. I take WP:GNG to be much more fluid, with no specific number or types or lengths of reliable sources, whereas the argument above seems to be that two sources always meets the multiple independent reliable source requirement because two is "multiple". Different editors interpret GNG differently, but I think such a literal, most minimal interpretation ignores its intent. Agyle (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sufficient number of notable contributors does by common sense make a publication notable. (In this case, GNG also, but common sense is the more important consideration, based on the core principle that WP is an encyclopedia == & should therefore contain articles on things significant enough that people would expect to find them in an encyclopedia.) GNG does have some limitations on its usefulness: By manipulating the meaning of the words "multiple", "substantial", "independent" and "reliable", we can pretty much make the GNG guideline mean whatever we want it to. If we do not wish to keep an article, it's usually possible to find some reason to object to the sources. If we want to keep it, is generally possible to find some reason why the sources are adequate. The details of the the way we do this are in the archives of AfDs--and 2 has essentially always been interpreted as sufficiently multiple--the arguments have generally been over whether in some cases one is sufficient. In practice, GNG is well enough accepted here that if in a given case you wish to depart from it, the burden is on you to show a reason why it gives an unsatisfactory result. No reason has been shown here. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG:, the issue here is that we barely have one substantial reliable source, contrary to claims made above. The only substantial source is a local news piece in a small newspaper close to where the editor is located, and even that hit the local news section rather than a general news piece. If we're generous, we have one substantial reliable source. That's it. I would implore you to examine the sources more closely and see what the notability is truly hanging on. That it is a republisher of content from noteworthy people doesn't somehow confer notability, either: that claim doesn't exist in our notability guidelines and would open the door to a lot of nonsense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what has already opened the door to an immense amount of nonsense, is the quibbling about the exact applicability of the GNG, which can be unrelated to the actual notability or the merit of the article, but it is true that an even greater amount would be permitted by its exact use in the minimal sense; on the other hand, its use in the maximal sense you suggest would give a very abridged encyclopedia in many subject fields (including all publications other than books). The only way to avoid these extremes is to do what in practice we increasingly try to do, which is to make a global or RW-criterion based estimate of the appropriateness of the article for the WP. So, on the basis of the actual significance of the subject to an encyclopedia reader, why do you think it fails to the extent of being nonsense that we should eliminate ? DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is actually significant to many readers. It gets relatively few page views according to its own disclosures and the mainstream press has barely noticed its existence. I don't even see a bare minimum to work with here in terms of building an article; the entire thing would end up being based on the local news piece that is basically a reporter repeating the editor's claims about the site. That even reliable, ultra-partisan news sources haven't found this worthy of being written about should be a major flag for us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, appreciate your thoughtful comments next to your Keep opinion. I still differ in my view, and wanted to reply to what you said. First, I was not looking for a reason to justify keeping or deleting the article, or manipulate the interpretation of GNG, but to impartially determine "does this meet GNG". In my opinion it does not; I only found one source I consider significant coverage. It's a subjective determination though, as you presumably found the same Financial Express article to provide significant coverage. Second, regarding your idea of applying a common sense alternative to GNG of "notability of contributors", I disagree with that. There are a dozen notability guidelines that cover different types of topics (academic, medical, companies, media, websites, etc.), refined over the years to include many alternative criteria to GNG, but they do not include exceptions for notable contributors to a website; in fact the web notability guidelines (WP:WEB) seem to suggest the opposite: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." Agyle (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2014 (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. Consensus is to delete the panda ₯’ 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander

AfDs for this article:

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

Any previous notability for claiming to be 'Britain's Vainest Man' superseded by more recent claimants 'Matt Dunford' or 'Steven Dolan'. Alexander is not "frequently seen in media" as article claims. Internet searches mainly relate to PR for persons buisness ventures. Being a big spender on personal appearance does not make someone a "person of note". (Page semi-protected and I'm awaiting being Autoconfirmed so I haven't been able to add to the page the tag {{subst:afdx}} yet, someone may be able to help) Junfire (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Added the template to the article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article establishes dubious notability and is clearly written as an advertisement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the AFD proposer - All I can find out about him is he got some press attention in 2006 as he was one person in a documentary called "Britain's Biggest Spenders" and made fanciful claims such as he was going to buy a village in Bulgaria to name after himself. All the press stories seem to relate to his claims on that one TV show. Someone has written on the Wikipedia article that his "business went bankrupt in 2009" but that doesn't come from a reference source and for the last 7 years the media appear to have had zero interest in him, not what you would expect if this person was "notable". Junfire (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this may have been noteable at some point in the past its notability is definetly in question. An issue under notability guidelines so seems a reasonable delete. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability can not be lost, the person has been covered in multiple independent sources and passes WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negative WP:BLP of someone sourced to the Daily Mail and the Sun? Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (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. Existence !=notability. The discussions that question the lack of sourcing to meet WP:NMUSIC are most clear - WP:GNG is not optional, and Wikipedia is not a list of musical acts the panda ₯’ 23:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tora (band)

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

Promo. (No proof that any of their songs or EPs charted or was issued by a real record company.) The Banner talk 09:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThat's a stupid reason to delete a page. They clearly exist, and are therefore worth documenting.71.186.247.32 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Helped with formatting, if you want to keep the article change "Comment" to "Keep" :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and establishes the band's notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, plenty of information, and definitely notable in my view. Don't see a good enough reason to delete. Adamh4 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn';t my subject really, but it does read like an overly detailed article for non-notable releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As reviewer, I have seen the old AfC nomination and hence checked the sources and even fixed it. An unnecessary AfD Nomination. The Herald (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD? Or do you mean AfC? The Banner talk 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry..The herald 12:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey The Herald, what notability criterion applies, according to your review? Or are you just arguing GNG? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As the creator of this page I hold natural bias, however I do believe that this page meets the criteria set out by Wikipedia. (https://www.triplejunearthed.com/artist/tora). The song-box marked 'These Eyes' displays a red marching drum, a symbol representing national radio play, and therefore consideration in national radio charts. The article has been well sourced and improved with the help of 'The Herald' and perhaps others. It's on these merits I do believe this article warrants the use of 54kb in the Wiki database. As a blooming band this article will only become more concise and worthy of documentation. Thedrunkenship 10:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any proof that any of their songs, EP, albums or how it is called today ever charted? Because being played or merely existing is not enough for the assumption of notability. The Banner talk 17:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thedrunkenship, do you have any association with the subject of the article? i.e. Are you a member, management, or an avid fan?shaidar cuebiyar (talk)
Delete. Article is not well sourced and fails to establish the band's notability. Tora lacks coverage in independent relaible sources. The article does have a lot of sources very few of them are reliable. The only two independent sources here worth considering are the Byron Shire Echo and the ABC North Coast NSW. Both are just local interest pieces, nothing substantial. The former is mainly the band talking about themselves (primary) so fitting into the exception described in WP:MUSIC#1. The latter lacks any depth of coverage. Tora has been played on Triple J (as shown by the unearthed link) but it is not rotation and does not give them any charting. ("consideration in national radio charts" is a meaningless claim). This is an overly promotional piece for an up and coming band that's not yet notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE please note the related navbox {{Tora}} is also up for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have to admit I don't see how they meet WP:MUSIC. There are lots of references, but they're pretty much poor quality, self-published stuff that's been thrown at the article like a handful of mud to see if anything will stick. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - sheer weight of bad sources doesn't establish noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Δεν είναι τώρα (English:Not now) Insufficient RS for notability. More work by subject of the article to become more widely known is required.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2014 (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. Angr (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim unity

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

It looks like somebodys mouthpiece and there is . Can you redirect it somewhere? Swingoswingo (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to be salvaged here for considering a selective merge or redirect to any other article. WP:!. Harsh (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly parts of the article are not objective, but the article is by no means devoid of useful content as Harsh claims. (I'd say that roughly the firts half is OK & the second half should go. As for "no significance of the term Muslim unity", nonsense. The topic is clearly a notable one: note that there is a Muslim Unity Center in Michigan, for example.

Comment The "other stuff exists" argument isn't valid. Also, that article itself doesn't seem notable either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable term. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This not only fails WP:GNG and comes off as soapbox-ing, but it also doesn't claim notability - it possibly could have been nominated for speedy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the term may be a valid phrase and potentially in common useage it isn't noteable on its own merits Amortias (T)(C) 23:20, 8 May 2014 (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 ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Hamilton Junior

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

Unverifiable, I couldn't find any reference to this person. Fram (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:V, author removed CSD without reason or additional valid information.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, unverifiable, no credible reasons to assume subject is notable. This should have been dealt with as a speedy deletion and would have been if the author of the page had not have removed the CSD notice. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2014 (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of military units in the 2014 Crimean crisis

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

First, no reliable third party sources consider in details the entire list. Second, this list is not notable ehough to be a separate article. All supported by sources information from this list can be moved to the main article 2014 Crimean crisis. No reason for the story to be divided and partly duplicated in so many articles. Debi07 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources, topic is large and different. OccultZone (Talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just put those there. Some units are difficult to ascertain, so I placed qualifiers. Perhaps this should be merged to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Wikipedia may end up merging that into the crisis article anyway, but the amount of military detail there should be decided centrally.--Martin Berka (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The subject of the list is not defined. Should the list include all units which existed on the territory of Crimea during period of conflict? Much of that existed legally by Russia-Ukraine agreement. Or the list should include only units which were involved in active conflict? Or anything else? 2) I do not see any sources beyond several newspapers. Even livejournal.com is in the list of sources of this article. To have a separate wiki article, we need as sources also more serious research articles which treat this subject. 3) Sources are very vague, see for example "Some 'local' forces in Crimea look a lot like Russian military" [22]. They do not say anything definite. Such style is good for a newspaper but not as a source for enciclopedia. For these reasons I think we could move this small amount information from this list to 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine and delete the article. Otherwise we need to define the subject of the list, so that we can have a definite rule to decide if any particular unit should or not be included in the list. Then we need to find reliable sources, preferably research articles published after conflict, which consider the subject (at least some sources should discuss the list of units as a separate subject) according to the definition. Debi07 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The presence of the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is itself disputed. A lot of content from the latter should be merged into this one instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination was never properly transcluded; I have done it now, and we need to discuss at least one week (barred WP:SNOW outcome).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not an article for just now, guys. We can continue to improve and extend and reference it for up to 15 plus years, or however long WP is around... Just consider the articles covering British and Argentine units in the Falklands War. This conflict is just as notable, if a bit murky at the moment. It is unquestionably notable, as much as any other military order of battle article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buckshot: an order of battle is a perfectly viable topic for an article, and we have dozens of them - some at FA level. List of orders of battle provides a partial listing of similar articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buckshot, Orders of Battle are important details to understand a battle and the preparation for it; therefore we also do such list for all other relevant battles/military events. noclador (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (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. v/r - T P 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brander

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Completely non-notable individual. No third party references describe this person in the level of detail required for a biography. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Brander is a rising star in the Jewish world and has achieved notoriety on many fronts. This article clearly needs some good work to make it up to snuff but nonetheless its important to have it. 74.102.231.14 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would like to contest this deletion. This individual is notable both as a dean and university vice president [23] as well as a published scholar [24]. His biography is described in detail on the university website [25] in the level of detail required for a biography. Idtboy (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (EST)

I don't believe being a mid-level dean at a mid-level institution is an indication of notability. I don't believe that unpublished drafts are published. The primary sourced "about" page has no biographical detail. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, Hip. Have you done a wp:before search? The RS coverage need not be in the article. It simply has to exist. For example, the 15-paragraph article "Brander named vice president at Yeshiva University" in the Sun-Sentinel is entirely about the rabbi. Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, yes. I don't believe that puff-piece articles with no detail are substantial biographical works. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why do you refer to the 15-paragraph article as having "no detail?" On the contrary, it appears quite detailed, and appears to reflect precisely what a biography-supporting article would contain--in terms of biographical content. And Sun-Sentinel is clearly an RS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Keep~~ ~~The reliable and verifiable sources in the article and available elsewhere meet the notability standard.~~ After further review and input, I agree with the argument that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this WP:N rabbi, there are so many WP:V and WP:RS about and by him on: "Kenneth Brander", books, scholar that prove this beyond any doubt. The article merely needs improved editing which can easily be done. The nominator could have sought WP:EXPERT advice at WP:TALKJUDAISM on the matter to avoid the rush to an AfD. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those results either mention him in passing or don't mention him at all. Are you sure there's sufficient detail? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hip -- there is no requirement that the majority of results meet GNG. So its irrelevant whether they do. All that is required is that the minority that you implicitly refer to as doing more than mentioning him in passing meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would suggest adding just his name and some credentials to the page: Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future, an organization which he currently runs and started. His page in its current state is untenable and should be deleted.Pretzelguy (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Pretzelguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- NOTE to closing admin: The above is the first and only edit [26] by newby User Pretzelguy (talk · contribs) who cites no WP policies and just raises more questions about himself than about the subject of this AfD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE to closing admin: I am of the opposite opinion from IZAK about the notability of the article in question, but I agree with him that the !vote by Pretzelguy should be discounted. BMK (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - University assistant deans are not notable. BMK (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an assistant dean, apparently, but a full dean. As well as rabbi, founder of a high school, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does appears to be the case, but nevertheless, he is not the Dean of Yeshiva University, but a dean of one of its units, one among many. BMK (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is the Yeshiva University Executive Vice President for University and Community Social Life, and Dean of the University's Center for the Jewish Future (CJF). --Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can read. Please pay close attention to what I write: he is not The Dean of Yeshiva University, a unitary position, he is ONE OF Yeshiva University's multiple number of deans. Every major department or school within the university will have its own dean, the person is charge of that unit. Unless the dean is otherwise notable being the dean, the head of a department or school within a university does not give one notability.

I'm reacting to your !vote. Based on your misunderstanding that he is an "assistant dean." He's an EVP of the university. And he is dean of the center; as far as I can tell the university has four centers, and Adrienne Asch is director of a second one, and Steven Fine is director of a third one. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page on their website, Yeshiva University has 12 deans. Being one of 12 people at the same level in a organization does not confer notability.
According to this page of their website, Brander is one of 5 vice presidents of the university, and there are two senior vice presidents above that level on the totem pole. Again, being one of five people three levels down from the top does not confer notability. BMK (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my !vote is based primarily on GNG. But he is one of four deans of a Center at the university -- and the deans of two of the other centers are also notable, with wp articles. And he is also a rabbi, and has been the spiritual leader of two synagogues, and has founded the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, and was Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, and has had at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him. It's not a determination made solely on "is being Dean of a Center of the university enough?" --Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know his resume. The one thing you omit is that none of that adds up to notability. BMK (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary. Meeting wp:GNG by having significant coverage by virtue of having at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him adds up to notability. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A haphazard list of minor accomplishments none of which rises to the level of notability for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the majority of the !voters have indicated, he is notable. Simply because he meets GNG, including a 15-paragaph article about him in an RS, and various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him. It doesn't matter whether he is an assistant dean (he is a full dean it appears) or a janitor -- if he meets GNG, he is notable for wp purposes. And while the 15-paragraph biographical review of him is anything but "haphazard," that wouldn't matter -- GNG encompasses substantial RS coverage, whether haphazard or not. Furthermore, the assertion that the RS coverage has "no detail" is clearly incorrect, as discussed above. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there is one article which meets the requirement of GNG (i.e. independent reliable secondary sources) does not mean that the subject necessarily passes GNG, which says, quite specifically:
  "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added)
  What you have here is a man who's been the rabbi at two synagogues, and is now an assistant dean at a university. I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone else in the encyclopedia with credentials that minimal who has an article, but, in any case, those three things -- which are his claim to fame -- do not make him notable. BMK (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting that the 15-paragraph RS on him meets GNG. As you will note, I pointed out that the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." Examples are in the refs in the article that are to RSs -- there are between half a dozen and a dozen of those. GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". He has received precisely that. That is why the majority of the !voters here have !voted Keep. Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the notability standards. There can be gazillions of articles in reliable sources that mention his name in passing, and it doesn't add one iota to his notability. It takes numerous significant coverage articles to do that, and there is nothing like that for this person - just that one article, and nothing else, which is not sufficient. BMK (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, if the coverage was exactly what we have now, and Brander had leaped up to become the Dean of Yeshiva University, that would be different. It might still be borderline to some people, but I'd be inclined to say that the Dean of a fairly major institution such as that is inherently notable. This is not the case for Assistant Deans, of which there are a plethora. Brander may someday be notable enough to have an article, but that is not the case at this time. BMK (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've somewhow mis-read (again) what I wrote. I wrote -- twice now; this is the third time: "the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." And that is what the majority of the !voters here have also said. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread, I do not share your evaluation of those other articles. They are not significant coverage. You've got press releases masquerading as a newspaper article and other garbage like that, and they are far from sufficient to show notability.
Also, please remember that AfD is not a !vote, it's the quality of the arguments which determine the closing, so it's silly to keep pointing out the numbers, especially when the discussion is still ongoing (and particularly when there are 4 "keep" !votes and 3 "delete" votes). We're less than halfway through the 7 day period. BMK (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brander is a substantially influential figure in both the Jewish and Academic spheres. He warrants a page on the merit of his research and rulings are also of not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.147 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP address above has no edits credited to it since 2009 except for this comment.

Are there reliable sources that say that? BMK (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects many RSs that speak of his leadership positions in the religious and academic communities (spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, "Top 50 Jewish Community Builder" list, YU EVP, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America), and cite his religious opinions--for example in an article devoted to discussing his opinion with regard to the impact of a natural disaster on Jewish law requirements to observe the Sabbath. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has an opinion, and I assume every rabbi expresses his or hers, but I see no indication in the sources provided that Brander's are "influential". BTW, what kind of "research" does he do, and what authority has he to make "rulings"? What I'm seeing here from his advocates is a lot of hand-waving and boot-strapping, not clear-cut and straightforward notability and significance. BMK (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every rabbi has full articles in RSs about an opinion of his. Not every rabbi is the spiritual leader of a synagogue (or, here, two). Or founds a high school. Or is Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. Or has the other indicia. None of this is hand-waving -- it is all RS-supported hard-fact straight-forward material. The hand-waving is the effort to ignore it. As to the level of his authority -- it is the level inherent in the various positions indicated above and in the article and relative to the institutions (the two synagogues, the high school, the university, the Rabbinical Council of America) with which he has held those positions, but it would be off-topic to discuss here the details further and it is of course irrelevant what "research" he does -- thought if you look at his writings perhaps you can deduce it.Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Brander is a wonderful figure who is inspiring and also fulfills all the biographical requirements for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.102.47 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note to closing admin: I have struck out the above comment for these reasons: The above IP has said in his edit summaries on the article that he or she knows Brander personally, and the editor has been repeatedly trying to add a large amount of unsubstantiated unsourced information into the article on the basis of their personal knowledge, over the objections of other editors. (They have also used 66.87.117.237, 129.98.152.14 and other addresses to do this.) The material they have been adding is a mixture of plausible and outright falsehoods, hoaxes, and jokes, things such as comments that Brander is self-ordained, that he has "not yet won a Nobel Prize" but has been nominated numerous times for the Peace Prize, that Brander has been compared to Abraham Lincoln (with a ref an article the title of which is "Rumor is Rabbi Brander breathes"), that because of his work with "granular composites" Brander has been given honorary Iowa citizenship, and so on. These are vandalistic edits, which editors on both sides of this issue can agree damage the article (which, if it is kept, should be the best possible article it can be). These actions should not be rewarded by allowing the editor to participate here, and the editor is warned that if he or she undoes the strikeout, or otherwise defaces this comment or the rest of the discussion, I will bring in an admin to deal with them. BMK (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above has been blocked by Daniel Case for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is a target of constant vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.160.18 (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the above is a first-time one-time drive-by vote [27]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with BMK. I don't think there are enough RS and that his role is notable. Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to your first AfD !vote. How many RS do you believe are "enough"? And which position are your referring to, inasmuch as he has had many -- rabbi, his positions at the two synagogues, founder of the high school, his positions at the university, or his position at the Rabbinical Council of America?Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a number, but the RSs are not significant. I don't think any of these roles are notable, do his peers (other founders of High Schools? other people with the same university position?) have Wikipedia articles? Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the RSs -- you wrote "I don't think there are enough RS." What is "enough" in your view? When you write you don't think they are significant, are you saying that the RS articles devoted to him and his views are not significant? Or the Sun Sentinel and Forward are not significant? As to his peers, that falls under wp:otherstuffexists. But yes, you can find peers of his who are university deans and high school founders (and rabbis leading synagogues) who have wikipedia articles. See, e.g., the 252 rabbis in Category:21st-century rabbis, and List of Deans of Literature, Science, & Arts at the University of Michigan, and high school/prep school/college founder rabbis David Hartman (rabbi) and Moses S. Margolies and Nota Schiller. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche -I don't know if you're aware of ir, but posting a "counter" to every response you disagree with is generally considered ro be borderline disruptive. It's quite clear what your views are regarding the article in questions. That's a single !vote in the scheme of things here, and the !vote of Factsonlyplease39 is another one. Generally speaking, it's not considered good form to counter specific !votes in this manner, as opposed to discussing generalities. BMK (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes editors raise different points. For example -- you in your !vote based it on the mistaken belief that he is an assistant dean. New point. Deserved a correction. Similarly here, the editor raises new points, which similarly are being discussed. Who knows -- the discussion has just led to one editor changing their mind; it may lead to others. There is nothing at all improper about that. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Explain to me why J. David Bleich, an article I created back in 2005 that has stood the test of time, is notable but Rabbi Brander is not notable? I have met both in real life. Both are, in their own ways, great scholars and as has been pointed out, subjects of Reliable Sources. P.S. You may delete this comment, but don't delete the article! Man katal (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user Shalom Yechiel is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out comment from banned user. BMK (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to the being in the top 50 Jewish Community Builders in South Palm beach - this is an area of population of less than [1200] this may need clarification; if this refers to the South of the entire county of Palm Beach this may increase the noteability. It appears to be a lot of minor noteable acheivements but many of them would only be noteable in distinct local areas rather than on a wider scale. If we are after major noteability it doesnt appear to be something that this individual has. Amortias (T)(C) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The keep !votes are primarily focused on whether he meets our general notability guideline. Which you can read at wp:GNG. It focuses not (as your analysis does) on whether a person's title is notable (or titles, in this case). But whether the person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Thus, people can meet GNG if all they are is a rabbi who has been spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America ... if they meet GNG ... without worrying about the size of the synagogues, the high school, DJF, etc. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of his positions appear to be of note outside of the communities he is involved in; his role Executive Vice-president for Univeristy and Social Life would have limited effect outside of the University and its associated organisations. His role as Dean for a Centre of a university may be noteable locally but would not be something that people would be able to recall or even be aware of its existence outside of the University itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.231.14 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete His job and the refs do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. BMK makes some good points. Edison (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenrico

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

The article fails to establish the notability of this company or organisation as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The references giving within the article are merely out of date business listing, an advert and press release which are not considered sufficient to establish notability. Significant words by reliable secondary sources are required. A search on Google, books and scholar found no such reliable sources, thus the article is proposed for deletion on notability grounds.

The article was put up for PROD but removed by Xoloz because "not clear subject fails WP:GNG -- sourcing is bad, but company has developed major drugs" However, the company has not developed any drugs at all. It makes alternative medicines not drugs. None of the products are notable and no sources to back notability can be found. In any case, notability is not inherited and the manufacturers of a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable.

The company is not notable, there are no reliable sources, the information in the article is not verifiable, there is no likelihood of these circumstances changing. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be utterly un-notable producer of woo nonsense; more or less advertising, and created by an SPA. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2014 (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 Eastern Air Lines#Notable accidents. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Airlines Flight 935

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

Completely non-notable Petebutt (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to meet suggested notability guidelines for aviation accidents. Consider merging to Eastern Airlines#Notable accidents if considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in that list.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as far as it should go!--Petebutt (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pontificalibus. Notable enough to cover in the airline an aircraft article, but not a stand alone article. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable for stand alone article but does warrant mention in airline and aircraft article....William 12:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. No injuries, no deaths, no fowl (sorry for the pun), no article. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Menagerie (professional wrestling)

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

Total lack of notability, haven't even competed yet. Please only create articles for subjects after they have become notable. Fram (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable (right now) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability at this point. Maybe later. Maybe not.LM2000 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (added by starship.paint on behalf of IP) No delete...they are a stable in a major promotion, even though the stable is new and the information is currently slim, in the coming weeks no one will deny they are notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.157.148 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every tag team / stable that exists meets notability. 3MB doesn't. Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks didn't. A good measure is whether they've won championships or are involved in top level feuds. This is a brand-new stable, and from the spoilers they are feuding with the BroMans, small fry. Don't salt the article, though, it might become notable later on. starship.paint "YES !" 13:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They've been building up this storyline for weeks with vignettes, they made their debut on Thursday, they'll be a big part of the show for the next few weeks (as the next 6 weeks or so of Impact Wrestling have already been taped), and I've done a lot of work on the article - adding details and references - to bring it more up to snuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, personally I'd like to see decent articles for the individual members first, give them time to get established and then we'll see where it goes. Duffs101 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Knux and Rob "The Freak" Terry already have articles. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a thought...since the article is already made, wouldn't it make more sense to let this article stand for now to see how the stable plays out? If they make it big, then there's already an article up and running that we can add to...if they flop, then we can always come back and delete this article. To me, it makes more sense to do it that way than to delete this article right away, and then have to start a whole new article from scratch. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better save the article in your sandbox, Vjmlhds. Hey, if the group debuted like Nexus or Fortune you might have a case. But from the spoilers, they are feuding with the BroMans into Slammiversary? That's nowhere near the top of the card! starship.paint "YES !" 13:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable (now).--Sismarinho (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hello, I'm a contributor of the french WP (10 350 edits) but I haven't got many edits in this Wiki. I understand if my opinion can't be taken into account. The french article is also in articles for deletion. The debut of The Menagerie is in May 8, 2014 (3 days). This article can't be OK for notability. Sorry, my english isn't perfect. And can I contribute in this page if I havent got 50 edit ?--Gratus (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just contributed, Gratus. Thank you for your contribution. starship.paint "YES !" 13:06, 11 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Tan

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Very few fights none top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the sources are merely routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Wilson

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

Not sure that this meets the notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any significant,reliable sources. Not notable. Harsh (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable presenter. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see notability Bali88 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2014 (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. Having review previous nom and this nom, plus "improvements" since, it's clear that this list is failing the requirements to remain as a separate article the panda ₯’ 23:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Total Drama characters

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reason as last time: "This article is 100% composed of in-universe trivia, ridiculously over-burdened with overly-detailed character bios, and outright fails to establish any out-of-universe notability. The sources are generally not reliable, or say nothing about the characters, just the show."

Closer of last AFD in September 2013 noted, "no prejudice against future relisting if the article hasn't been improved in a reasonable time." After said AFD, the article has only continued to bloat and bloat with more unnecessary, in-universe original research, and poor writing, with no reliable third party sources forthcoming. Despite several people in the last AFD agreeing that a cleanup was in order, no one took on the job — likely because the article is so freaking long that cleaning it up would be a Herculean task. Also, the amount of edits is so staggeringly high that, even if it were somehow trimmed down, it would just as likely bloat back up to its current size in weeks. You fans of the show have your own wiki; why spam our own?

There is honestly no way in the world that this monstrosity will ever be properly cleaned up, so clearly the only solution is some WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and nuke: There's little real recourse for this, it's too ossified for anyone outside the fandom to attempt chopping down but I reckon the information could be better handled in a dedicated location and a far smaller overview to be listed here, even a huge array of WP:RS couldn't justify this sort of exhaustive in-universe coverage and it's clear there's very few out there. tutterMouse (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TutterMouse: Transwiki is not a good idea, since Wikia already has a dedicated article for EVERY character in the series, so that is why Wikipedia only has one article for ALL the characters. Performing a transwiki move will do nothing but delete this article and cause all the information to be moved back to the season articles like in here before the characters article was first created. Giggett (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, might I ask, usually for this style of article (character pages), to what degree of information is required (or should I say allowed)? And I don't really think any "list of characters" page on wikipedia has sources for the individual characters of the show, mainly because there's so few of them that exist. Provide me with a three examples of pages that do have sources for an individual character's bio and I'll take back what I said. Snowy66 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowy66: List of human Sesame Street characters is a good example of a character list, and one of the few that's "featured list" status. Go to WP:FL and look for any other with "X characters" in the name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Hmm, while some of them do give character bios, most of those are information on the actors not the characters. And in fairness Seasame Street has been around back when we only had dial up internet, so their information is all over the web. It's a lot harder with something like Total Drama. But yes, I see the kind of thing your after. General overview of the character and little to no mentionings of specific episodes right? Can you give us a little more time while I discuss this with the article's primary moderator? Snowy66 (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, it provides a place for the character information to live, which keeps the articles on the series itself and the individual seasons trimmed down. On the other hand, this article is bloated with details—and, as Snowy66 pointed out, not all of the details can be verified to reliable sources. It's a constant struggle with this subject to make sure information is verifiable: a lot of the information on the latest season traces back to social media (posts by creators and voice actors) and a leaked script.

In that light, I think this AfD needs to be looked at as an attempt to get consensus on whether this level of information belongs on Wikipedia. If the result is keep, it stays. If the result is keep and merge, it stays somewhere else (and that's going to take serious paring down). If the result is delete, then the community has said this information has no place on Wikipedia, either in this article or in any other TD article, and it should be removed from those articles if it pops up (and citing this AfD as rationale, if necessary).

To that end, I'm not quite ready to opine on the fate of the material. I want to consider the relevant policies a little more as well as the overall effect on the project, and I want to hear arguments from other editors on how either keeping or deleting this article is in keeping with Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with TNT. I do believe that this article should be deleted so we can start all over and make the article again with just minor summaries with more info on the actors that way the article can look more like List of Ben 10 characters or List of 6teen characters. For now on, I am not going to edit this article anymore until a decision has been made to whether delete or keep. Giggett (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get rid of the unnecessary templates and tables. it's a fictional cartoon reality game show and the way it's put together is more complicated than it needs to be. Boaxy (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boaxy: I tried getting rid of the tables once but people just keep adding them back. Even if we remove all the templates, we are still left off with massive character summaries that show nothing but unneeded trivia. It's better to just TNT the whole thing and write the summaries from scratch. Giggett (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and trim down) into each series' respective character sections. While most of the descriptions can be salvaged, this is needlessly meticulous. It doesn't make any attempt to sort characters by series, so it's beyond useless to redirect readers to within character sections. If the list is to be recreated, basic descriptions should be preserved in the main articles so that if it has to be nuked again, at least it won't leave a gap for readers. Whisternefet (t · c) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better to TNT it and start from scratch - and while we're at it, semi-protect it indefinitely against IP editors adding fan speculation and the other useless stuff (particularly the elimination charts, which can already be found at each of the individual shows), which has become more of a problem the more popular the show has become. Basic works best. Creativity-II (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering that in case we delete the whole article and start all over, then what kind of summaries should be rewritten into the new article? Will they be like the current summaries but much shorter, or will they take a whole different approach and talk more about their personalities rather than their outcomes? Giggett (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Giggett: See WP:WAF. I don't follow the show, so I don't know exactly what would be relevant, but as long as it's written out-of-universe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, salt/protect the page, and allow for someone willing to rewrite this in a manner that is more appropriate for a list of non-notable characters from the show. Such a list is reasonable, but probably can be 1/10th the size this takes to cut down to core character traits and little else. The approach I suggest is to prevent a new version from simply being dropping into place but to have some admin double check it to make sure it is right. This keeps the edit history but removes the issue of simply far too much nonsense even for list of characters announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 May 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg scarlatoiu

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

While I respect what he does, Scarlatoiu is ultimately the administrator of a not-terribly-important think tank with four employees answering to him. That's a nice career, but it's not usually what qualifies one for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In terms of the sources presented, I think we can discount the videos and the official biography, which leaves us with a couple of interviews he's given to the (South) Korean press. I don't read Korean and I may be missing something in the machine translation, but I don't see anything there that would change my opinion as to the man's notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I would argue that Scarlatiou's job encompasses more than an administrative role. He is one of the most sought after commentators on North Korean human rights. You can see his radio and podcast appearances here http://www.hrnk.org/links/podcasts.php and I can also produce hundreds of articles in which he provides expert commentary. He is also a frequent expert speaker at Conferences and lectures (in the last few weeks he has spoken at the Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/05/north-korea and Brookings Institute http://www.hrnk.org/events/events-view.php?id=25). I would imagine there is not too much money in the field, but HRNK commissions some of the leading reports on the topic written by experts including Fellows at the Brookings Institute, and Professors at top-tier Universities (see http://www.hrnk.org/publications/hrnk-publications.php). Is any of this information enough to establish notability? I can edit the page to be more like that of Suzanne Scholte (another North Korea Human Rights activist who has a Wikipedia page)? Thanks. Ghb123 (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much impact on literature yet. Probably too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete media talking heads are not inherently notable. No korean-language article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiara Diane

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominators accurate assessment. Finnegas (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2014 (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. Whether this is a bad faith nomination or just a badly informed one, the discussion makes clear that the nomination rationale is mistaken. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ree group

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

G3:Blatant hoax Qfmd (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is another Chihiro. We've got a legitimate mathematical concept that doesn't meet notability and is sourced by a wide variety of nonexistent print sources just to give it a name. Qfmd (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's even been edited almost-exclusively by one user. This page has only stayed up for the same reasons Chihiro did: most Wikipedians don't want to go through advanced mathematics. Qfmd (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question - what exactly is your issue with the article? Notability? I don't understand how the references listed are not satisfactory, but then again, I am completely oblivious to advanced mathematics.. until further clarification, (unclear) keep. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, and warn Qfmd (talk · contribs) not to engage in disruptive behavior. The nomination makes false claims; for example, several of the article's references are available online (and demonstrate that the term has indeed been used in actual mathematical research over several decades), and the existence of most other sources can be verified e.g. via the DOI links. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence whatsoever has been offered that this is a hoax in the style of Chihiro. In that case, most of the references were made up, and the remaining one or two could not verify the eponym. But this article has loads of actual references (of exceptionally high quality) that actually do use the term "Ree group". Also, I think a checkuser might be in order on the nominator. The original User:Wjxb was blocked along with a sockpuppet based on checkuser evidence. Now we have a "new" user who is immediately drawing comparisons with this deleted hoax article. Something doesn't smell right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HaeB and Slawomir Bialy, I see no reason why this should be deleted. Adamh4 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sources exist. Not a "blatant hoax." -- 101.117.3.30 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ascendants

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

This is a non-notable film series that seems to still be in development. Although the premise sounds interesting, reliable sources have not taken notice of it, and it seems to fail WP:NFF. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion. The series is ongoing and being shown in festivals as well as being distributed online. The first episode is widely available online and was a finalist at the Hollyshorts Film Festival (One of the top film festivals according to Moviemaker Magazine). It premiered at the famous Hollywood TCL Chinese Theater (formerly Grauman's) - no small feat! :) In addition, the principals of the film (the director, director of photography) are of some note in the East Coast film community (see IMDB citations). In addition, principal actor Johnny Lee Davenport has had a notable career, acting in TED, The Fugitive, US Marshalls, etc. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0202612/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisneelix (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisneelix: Can you point to any coverage in reliable sources? I tried checking Google, but I couldn't find anything. Examples of reliable sources would include Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Screen International, etc. You can find a non-comprehensive list at WikiProject Film. Specifically disallowed sources would include the IMDB, blogs, and other websites with user-generated content. Basically, we need evidence that professional journalists that have provided significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. News about Ascendants has been covered (and it's program documented on Archive.org) by Citywide Blackout (https://archive.org/details/CitywideBlackout-theAscendantsJoHenleyHomelessInACollegeTown) and this week on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/brian-the-hammer-jackson/2014/05/05/movie-monday-the-historian-meets-aimy-in-a-cage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisneelix (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Wikisneelix (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Wikisneelix[reply]

@Wikisneelix: Unfortunately, those look like blogs, but I admit that I'm not overly familiar with them. If you're involved in the production, the first thing I'd suggest you do is read our guideline on conflicts of interest; it's difficult to write neutrally about topics in which you're involved. Second, I'd suggest that you work on publicizing it to Film Threat, Twitch Film, and Dread Central, "genre film" websites that generally focus on smaller independent films. We consider them to be reliable sources, and, if they run stories on it, you'd have a much better chance of keeping this article. Your concept sounds interesting, and I'm sure you could build up online hype if you just went to the right websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just isn't any true coverage of this film series at all. Other than some coverage in places that can't really be used as a RS, there isn't anything to show that the films are notable in the slightest. I'd normally recommend redirecting to the author's page, but I can't see where he passes notability guidelines either. I'm going to nominate him for deletion shortly. I have a strong feeling that there is a COI here as well, so I'd like to second NPR's comments about reading our COI policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per not having the coverage to meet WP:NF. As parts of the concept series have been released and more is still under development and production, I would be okay with the article being userfied back to its author and he be instructed as to what constitutes notability and reliable sources. Allow undeletion and return only when notability criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Don Schechter, if we keep the target, which is also up for AfD. For directors of barely notable or lesser-known films, we have tended (although not always) to merge their works into one article. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (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.

[1] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801664.html

[2] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/us/exploring-christian-perspectives-on-animal-rights.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry518%23%2F%22Austin+Ruse%22

[3] ttp://buzzfeed.langiane.com/lesterfeder/despite-popes-softening-tone-the-vatican-remains-a-key-oppon

[4] ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/buzzfeed.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]