Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 17

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} 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Junior (footballer)

Francisco Junior (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Previously prodded at Francisco Júnior. A non-notable footballer who has not played a professional game.[1] Fails WP:ATHLETE. No substantial 3rd party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can be created when he actually plays for Everton. For now he fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuong Nhu

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

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

No indication this is a notable martial art. The world headquarters claims that there are 70 schools worldwide and I don't think that's enough to show notability for a martial art. There are no independent sources in the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient sources to show this art is notable. My nomination was in error. Papaursa (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Never having heard of it I immediately found half a dozen English sources in Google Books, and also a couple of sources back in Vietnam - where it is viewed as American. It's not massively notable and the article is badly written and sourced, but this is a case of improve not delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion.  Sandstein  06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Giavelli

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

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

This is apparently an autobiography; there are some nebulous claims of notability so I thought it best to bring it to AfD. The books appear to be self-published (one certainly is, the other two are E-books without attribution) and thus confer no notability. For the rest, I could locate no reliable sources that back up most of the claims and very little of this contributes to notability anyway. I confirmed the existence of an interview with her in a magazine. There is a strong air of self-promotion that would require extensive re-writing if this article survives AfD. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what claims are in dispute. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is being disputed is that the subject has sufficient notability to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. There are also not enough in the way of reliable sources to confirm any notability that is being asserted. Notability and reliable sources are two crucial elements of any Wikipedia article. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that being a corporate c level executive and the sole female cto in california confers notability. This is documented/backed up by a link to a dice interview article (dice is a well established jobs site for the technology industry). There is also a published article linked as well. Whether a book is self published or not is irrelevant since many others use publishing services as the new model also it is a simple matter to register a ISBN privately and then there would be no issue if something is "self" published or not. Whatever airs of "self promotion" are in the disputers head this is simply a information point for people seeking information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the policy on entries for living persons. I will adjust the tone and add more references. thanks. Please forgive my newness to using wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completed my updates of references as much as is possible in the short term. I had to learn how to do footnotes and proper wikipedia style. I have also re-linked the article into other wiki articles so I hope that meets the criticism raised. --Ggiavelli (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You may also find the policy on autobiography useful; you can expect this process to last about a week. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By way of comparison look at John Koza's wikipedia entry. I believe this current entry is better cited and more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I find the whole gamut of wikipedia rules, not just the rules but the thuggish way things are enforced and the hamfisted aggressive approach people have here to be extremely off-putting to sane logical people who are simply trying to use the system. It's not a friendly place in the slightest and to be honest after my experience here I feel like I will never come back. I find the reactions I have had disturbing to put it mildly. Maybe it is a response to vandalism of articles but at a certain point it becomes no more than petty thought police feeling high and mighty implementing their feifdoms. My submission was criticized for not having external links from other wiki articles. But when I tried to add such a link I got "Oh no you dont you have to discuss your changes in talk first" thats utter nonsense. To get such drivel just shows how far from a wiki this place has become. So basically I cannot fulfill the requirements, because the enforces are psychopaths. so forget it. who has patience for such childish people? I sure dont. Ggiavelli (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as self-promotion without secondary evidence of notability. I became aware of this AfD through the subject's postings at Neural network. I'm sorry to see a new user become offended by Wikipedia's policies and driven off, but WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see the significant coverage about the individual to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk) after author blanked the page and added speedy tags. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akil wingate

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

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

I was able to verify that this singer/songwriter/playwright/model/actor exists, but I was not able to find reliable sources to verify his notability in any of those fields. Prod removed by creator, who may have a conflict of interest. The article says that several of his songs 'reached top 20 status in Europe' - maybe I'm missing some obvious source that confirms this? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized city

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

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

Notability, lack of references Beastiepaws (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Grudging delete. I get the point the article writer is trying to make, but the whole thing sounds like original research. Every city is "specialized" in some sense, in that there's invariably some part of the local economy that's more prominent than the national average, but the leap from that to "specialized city" is such a weird claim that it needs strong sourcing to back the claim up, and those sources don't appear to exist. There are also some very dubious claims in the article that no genuine geographer or social scientist would make, which makes me strongly suspect that this is a school paper of some kind. (As an example, I've just removed some nonsense about London ceasing to be a port city following the end of the British Empire - the Port of London is one of the busiest ports in the world and employs over 30,000 people - and the idea that Bukhara is dominated by the carpet-making industry is just plain weird.) I can't see how this is saveable, as I don't believe the sources exist. Mogism (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but obviously needs more references supporting the topic. A valid topic that can be expanded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like completely original research. Beastiepaws (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above comment is by the nominator of this AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While it may well be possible to have an article on this topic, though perhaps at a different title, Mogism makes a compelling case that WP:TNT applies in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fail to see the notability factor in this article. It is reminiscent of students at a high school being asked to write an essay on different types of cities. Like Mogism, I think some of the assertions are generalisations and sweeping statements --Zananiri (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic itself is notable by the number of academic writings using that topic. I have added several references at the bottom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about notability or whether the article should be about the event rather than the person.  Sandstein  06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owen J. Baggett

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}}.

Owen J. Baggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

His claim to have shot down a Zero with a .45 was written up in Airforce magazine, but his military career doesn't appear to have any other notable achievements. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't see anything that makes him any different from vast numbers of other pilots and POWs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject is not notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. This article appears to fall under WP:BLP1E, and as such the event does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT. Additionally, although the subject appears to have co-authored a book, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the addition of multiple reliable sources, I have changed my opinion to Weak Delete, although there are other mentions of the subject, most are passing. There is the "Commander for a Day" article, but I don't know if that article could be considered significant coverage. Additionally, I am not sure that the Obit would not fall under WP:ROUTINE, or WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even though it does clearly pass significant coverage; now if the obit was carried in a more major publication I could be persuaded to changing my opinion to WEAK KEEP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obit in the San Antonio paper, but it is behind a paywall, so I'm not sure what it says. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A link please.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another copy of it here and will add to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing stands out as notable compared with thousands of other airmen and pow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I added several refs and could add more, but in any event, his story appears in numerous books (4 cited as refs), magazines, reliable websites, etc. WP:BLP1E is not an appropriate objection, as the subject of the article is not a living person. The WP:EVENT is also notable, as shown by the cites listed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. One of the few sites that can be accessed is his obituary. Being mentioned in several books about the war doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Google searches turned up no evidence of any notability except for the shooting event, which is only mentioned briefly in reliable sources, nor any evidence that the subject stands out significantly from his many fellow soldriers and POWs. His military career before and after the shooting incident was not out of the ordinary, and he does not meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER, or any other notability guideline, for that matter. The shooting incident itself is not notable enough to add any substantial notability, and fails WP:EVENT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER....William 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:SOLDIER is an essay. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) (was listeted by GregJackP)[reply]

• Keep Multiple reliable sources referenced in the article now, do give him significant coverage. Dream Focus 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dream Focus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) IRWolfie- (talk)[reply]

• • How do mentions = significant coverage in the terms required by GNG? What about the ONEEVENT argument? How does your vote overcome that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not consider this [2] to be significant coverage about the guy? And its not just about that one event. Dream Focus 10:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's just a war story. What makes it significant? If he had an obit in a major national newspaper, that would make him significant. A short mention in a local paper? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Don't know, since it is significant coverage per GNG (as I noted above) and the event is notable in and of itself. GregJackP Boomer! 10:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added six additional references. GregJackP Boomer! 12:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, per:

• "Valor: David and Goliath" Air Force Magazine article.
• "Best Shot with a 1911. Ever." Field and Stream Magazine article.
• "Owen Baggett, 85: friend of many, good drummer, one heck of a WWII tale" Abilene Reporter-News article.
• "The M1911 Gets a Zero" American Rifleman article.
• Gun Digest Shooters Guide to the 1911 (Click on the "Page 24" link to view the full coverage)
• "Owen Baggett Missing in Action" Hardin-Simmons University Bulletin.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the "GNG" coverage is either an obit or a retelling of the legend of him shooting down a plane with a 1911 (WP:ONEEVENT). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

• keep multiple references to him in reliable sources. ONEEVENT notwithstanding, a single event can be very notable - this one has been discussed numerous times, in numerous sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable references to him in reliable sources. Notable for a unique event, but still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and rescope so that the article is about the incident, which appears notable, not the person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, not a policy, and so is just a few editors' version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no general authority or force. The subject appears in multiple books and so easily passes WP:BIO. Our actual editing policy is to keep such material, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Bushranger above. This is a BIO1E case, but there is coverage in sources, so an article about the event is appropriate. Distant second choice would be an outright keep, but I don't see deletion as appropriate where there is this level of independent coverage. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebburn Reyrolle F.C.

Hebburn Reyrolle F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable amateur football club. Not played at level 10, or played in FA Cup or FA Vase. PROD was removed by LeagueOctopus saying "The club (or part thereof) appears to have played in the FA Vase - refer http://www.fchd.info/HEBBUR-1.HTM ". However, this is actually the FCHD record for Hebburn Town F.C. of the North Football League who, confusingly, used to be called Hebburn Reyrolle at one point too. Hence the {1} after the name. The other Hebburn Reyrolle FCHD pages can be found in the references section of the article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of WP:notability, zero wp-suitable references. And this in a field (sports) which is coverage-heavy in proportion to real world notabiity. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable club. Apologies for confusing the club name! League Octopus (League Octopus 09:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable football club. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Not a deletion issue. Although few opinions have been offered, it appears clear that whatever may be wrong with this page can be fixed editorially, such as by rewriting or redirecting it.  Sandstein  06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volya

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

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

Incorrect and confusing disambiguation page. The Banner _talk 20:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it incorrect and what's confusing? —Xezbeth (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguation page is not pointing to subjects of the same name or type. The two items mentioned have accidentely part of the name in common, but it is certainly not confusing or needing a disambiguation page. The Banner _talk 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially would have made a simple surname redirect since there's only one person with the name, but noticed that Narodnaya Volya (disambiguation) already existed. It seems like a perfectly valid thing to disambiguate. In addition, there are several settlements with this name too but I don't know Russian so would have butchered adding them. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III, which was renamed Volya or Volia, with a hatnote there to Pavel Volya. Narodnaya Volya is a WP:Partial title match and therefore not a legitimate dab entry. Alternatively, there do appear to be at least ten Russian populated places and one abandoned one named Volya,[3] so there is enough for a dab page with a person, a battleship and lots of redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This shouldn't be at AfD, it should have been boldly converted into a redirect. Nominator is correct that this is an improper disambiguation page. Y'all also forgot Zemlya i volya, not that it matters. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this individual's work, to the extent it has been recognized by reliable sources, is insufficent to show notability at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Booth

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

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

Has accomplished more than I have, certainly. Nevertheless, she does not appear to be notable for either her humanitarian work or her acting work, the references don't look particularly substantial or reliable, and I am having difficulty finding decent coverage of this person. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bongwarrior,

This is entirely your own opinion. Georgina Booth is very well-known in The Netherlands, Europe. I don't know where you are from, but you have a very subjective opinion if you are not from The Netherlands. I can not believe that you would delete a page about a young person who has done so many good things for other people. I myself have read a lot about this young person, and I am aware that she will be very prominent in the media in the near future as it is known that she will be participating in several projects which will gain a lot of media coverage in The Netherlands. I have thoroughly enjoyed writing an article about this spectacular young person and she is more of a philanthropist than an actress at the moment, so that is maybe the reason why you 'do not think her acting work is notable'. I find it very insulting that you do not think the sources are reliable as they are from official large organizations in The Netherlands. I do not know if you understand the language of The Netherlands? Where are you from exactly? IF you will delete this page, I will file a complaint about you and hopefully others will see more sense. Every other Wikipedia volunteer that has been updating the page about Georgina Booth have just corrected it to improve it, and you have only visited this page for the first time and want to immediately delete it. Who gives you the right to decide what should or should not delete it?

If the sources are an issue. A lot of other sources from The Netherlands can be added. I think it is highly unlikely that you know every single person on this planet, so if you think this person is not 'notable' enough, then that is entirely your subjective opinion. I find it very sad that you have only on this page once and spend a portion of time in your life searching about this person and then immediately want to delete it. I have seen a large quantity of Wikipedia articles which are very unreliable and are about people who have done much less work than this person in either philanthropy or acting and do not get insulting deletion messages from volunteers like you. Before deleting this page, if I were you, I would consider deleting a large amount of Wikipedia articles which contain a lot less than this article. --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I assure you it's nothing personal. I just think it may be too soon for an article about this person based on the quality of the sources presented so far. They don't need to be in English, but they do need to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. The sources that are used in this article are from very large organizations in The Netherlands. 2 sources are from one of the largest philanthropic organization in The Netherlands (the ministry of peace of which national Dutch politicians are part of so they are 100 percent legitimate. The minister of peace Jan Terlouw is a very famous children's author and former deputy prime minister of The Netherlands). The other sources are from one of the largest municipalities in The Netherlands of which Georgina has been actively involved in as a humanitarian ambassador. A lot of media in The Netherlands have written about this and she is very well-known there. A lot of articles on Wikipedia contain similar amount of sources as the sources in this particular article.

I find it very strange that you have only visited this article for the first time and immediately want to delete it. I find you, therefore, highly unreasonable, as all other volunteers/editors have only improved/edited the article or deleted particular sentences to improve article. The message about deletion must be taken away and if you have an 'issue' with sources, then more sources can be added over the weeks. Instead of wasting so much time about deleting a page of a young person who wants to do good things for others, we can just solve this issue now and get on with our lives. I do not want an argument, but this is really a waste of time to argue about a young girl who does humanitarian work in a small country in Europe (Netherlands). --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By the way, it must be emphasized that the deletion message must be removed, because it gives negativity to all of the good work and efforts this person has done for the good of others. A person like her does not deserve that. It is a very nasty act to delete an article about a young person who actually wants to do good. All of the other editors have only helped in a positive way. You could do the same by helping like all of the other editors/volunteers, instead of just being so negative and wanting to remove it. Please remove it. --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear other Wikipedia editors and volunteers reading this, would you please help me to delete the deletion message added by Bongwarrior. I do not have the time to argue about a young girl who is notable in a small country for her humanitarian work. I have put a lot of effort and thoroughly enjoyed writing an article about a good young person. Bongwarrior should not have put this deletion message on the article about Georgina Booth with the reasons he/she has given. The deletion message must be removed from the article, because it gives negativity to all of the good work and efforts this person has done for the good of others. A person like her does not deserve that. I praise any young person who does good for others and this person deserves an article to be written about her and she is also very notable for her good work in The Netherlands. --Wikinow1 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Wikinow1 — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If nobody will delete the deletion message added by Bongwarrior about the article of Georgina Booth, then I will delete that message myself as I have just as much right as others to edit this article. It can be discussed on here if some want to add it back and continue with arguing about a young girl who does a lot of humanitarian work.--Wikinow1 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1 — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would strongly advise against removing the deletion message on the article. If you look at the deletion message, you will see that it says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." You are not the person who gets to decide when the discussion is closed. (That will be most likely be done by an administrator about a week from now, after a full discussion of the article.) Also, please keep in mind that deletion discussions such as this one are not intended to be judgments of whether the subject is a good person, nor are they meant to be insults to the subject. There are typically more than a hundred deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion started every day and they are just meant to be a part of maintaining the encyclopedia. The best thing you can do for this article now would be to add the "lot of other sources from The Netherlands" that you mentioned above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 01:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, as she is well-known in a small country and her work mainly consists of philanthropy at such a young age, a lot of sources about her are not on the internet but were in newspapers, magazines and other written sources. I don't know exactly what you want me to do, but all of those sources are not available on the internet. It is also known that she is going to participate in some very large projects this year, so there will probably be more internet sources over the next few weeks. I will find it very petty if anyone wants to delete this page soon. We are all volunteers and it especially does not make volunteers from other countries 'experts' on a subject from a country they are not from based on reading one article. But, since you insist on 'more' sources, I have just added other sources which are all legitimate. How many 'sources' do I need to add, before all of you will take that 'deletion message' away? I would suggest all of you to scrutinize some other articles that contain much less sources about people who are less well-known, and who have no 'deletion messages' appearing on their articles. Just look on the list of people born in 1994 - a large amount of articles contain much less information than this article (about people who have hardly done anything) and which contain much less sources! I have tried to add some extra sources, and they are governmental pdf files about Georgina Booth (so they are legitimate), but Wikipedia will not allow me to do that. You can hardly expect me to retrieve all articles in newspapers and magazines that this person has been featured in! Instead of wasting time, can this 'issue' be solved now? What 'needs' to be done to take the deletion message away? If this Encyclopedia 'needs' to be 'maintained', then you should scrutinize those thousands of other articles, which do not have any deletion messages, and contain much less information (also hardly any sources). --Wikinow1 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

Regarding non-Internet sources, those are allowed to be cited. The way you can cite them is to use the "cite news" template (similar to the "cite web" template which I see you have already been using) and leave the URL blank. Or, alternatively, just type out the author, title, newspaper name, date, and page surrounded by <ref> ... </ref> -- so that if we went to a Dutch library, we could find them somehow. The deletion template is very likely going to be up on this article until August 24, so you may as well get used to it being there. And if you want to submit any other inadequately sourced articles for deletion, please go ahead and do so if those other articles deserve to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; it would need some reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article, and this article doesn't have that right now, looking online doesn't show anything either. - SudoGhost 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't anyone say any of this earlier? A lot of people have already edited it, and only because 'Bangwarrior' suddenly put the deletion message on, it 'might have to be deleted'. How subjective! It is a personal opinion. There are a lot of reliable sources about this person. I am also assuming none of you live in The Netherlands... That is probably the reason why none of you are 'finding sources' about this person. Do all of you really want to spend so much time scrutinizing this article? There is nothing wrong with this article and the sources are reliable and independent. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with large Dutch (governmental) organizations. Why are all of you so fixated on the internet? What about the actual hard copy sources, e.g. newspapers and magazines? Instead of scrutinizing this article about this young girl in particular who has done a lot of good things and has a lot of reliable sources to back her up, try looking and deleting some other articles of others who were born in 1994 and have really unreliable and non-independent sources (e.g. this person born in 1994: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Boscarino). Is a Twitter source of that person reliable? You should start checking these other articles instead... If you think a Twitter account on the 'article of Samantha Boscarino' is more reliable than reliable governmental and NGO sources of 'the article of Georgina Booth', then I must say that none of you know the rules of Wikipedia well. Is social media e.g. Twitter a reliable source and are articles from large Dutch (governmental) institutions not reliable? --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

By the way in response to 'Sudoghost' (Article fails WP:GNG; it would need some reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article, and this article doesn't have that right now, looking online doesn't show anything either.): I have just added another reliable source to this article that is independent from the topic (an article from a business club part of the Dutch government). How can you say that it is not reliable and independent? This article has more reliable sources than a lot of articles in the list of 'People born in 1994'. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

If all of you want to delete this, then you should delete most articles in the list of people in 1994. This person has done more than them and has more sources too. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, either way. Also please note that being in the news with lots of sources for "doing good things" does not equal notability. Also please stop assuming bad faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why scrutinize this article, when a lot of other articles are allowed to exist that don't obey the rules of Wikipedia? And this person is notable in The Netherlands. Are any of you from The Netherlands? It is an invalid reason to assume this person is not notable, just because you can't find enough about her in other countries. It is like saying that you should delete every article about small places in the world that most people in the world have never heard of. Not every biography on Wikipedia is about people who are notable in every single part of the world. A lot of people are just notable in 1 or a few countries. Just a question: is Twitter allowed as a source? --Wikinow1 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

If the subject is very notable in the Netherlands, I would expect to find an article about her in the Dutch Wikipedia. But as of now, there isn't one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Twitter is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few mentions of the subject floating around the internet, and I'm sure there are similar references to her in print sources that I can't dig up at the moment, but nothing to show notability. She'll probably get there someday, but right now any mention of her that I can find (even being fluent in Dutch) is either not significant coverage, or it is not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete - if Twitter is not a reliable source, then a deletion message should also appear on articles like 'the article of Samantha Boscarino' and on many other Wikipedia articles. Why is there no deletion message appearing on them, but all of you seem to be ganging up together on this article? How can I assume 'bad faith' according to some of you when everything I am saying is true? I would strongly recommend all of you to leave this page alone, or for a few months as it is known in the area where she is from that she is going to be more high profile (a lot of sources about her are hard copy). All of you just seem to be 'stalking' her and scrutinizing her obsessively on the internet when you could be scrutinizing others who do NOT meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Kind of sad scrutinizing an article about a young girl who has done a lot and is notable. By the way, 'MisterUnit', can you prove that you can speak Dutch fluently (and not using google translation)? I might just file a complaint about all of you who obsessively spending your time on scrutinizing an article that does overall meet the criteria of Wikipedia, when a lot of articles which do NOT are left unchecked. And if you, MisterUnit, are fluent in Dutch, how come you find the sources 'not independent of the subject'? If you were fluent in Dutch, you would read that they are independent governmental or NGO institutions in The Netherlands with leading Dutch politicians as head of them. Kind of sounds like all of you are jealous of this young person (due to the fact that she might have achieved more at a younger age than a lot of you without being on the internet 24/7) and that is why none of you want an article written about her... As 'Bongwarrior' already subjectively said when he placed the deletion message on the article 'Has accomplished more than I have, certainly' or as 'MisterUnit' said 'She'll probably get there someday'. By saying a personal opinion first rather than objectively observing this article, it shows that there are personal reasons why some of you believe that this article should be deleted... Maybe some of you have kids and are comparing her to them or maybe you are comparing her to yourselves? And I am not the first person on the internet to be saying this about some of the volunteers on this page who are criticizing this article... I do not want an argument, but I am only saying the facts. Also, I would like to emphasize that all of you are judging this person's article based on her acting career. It has to be emphasized that she is known more as a philanthropist than an actress. It was just put in her biography that she was an actress in the past and is now more primarily a philanthropist. And by the way, there IS an article on the Dutch wikipedia. --Wikinow1 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to promotional content, lack of notability, no reliable sources and not generally known at all in The Netherlands (contrary to what is stated above) the similar article which just has been placed on nl-wiki has been also nominated for deletion as well there. MoiraMoira (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC) editor/admin on nl-wiki; editor on en-wiki and living in The Netherlands[reply]

Comment You should really try to stay on topic here. If you think Samantha Boscarino should be nominated for deletion, then nominate the article for deletion. Nobody is saying that the rest of English Wikipedia is perfect by nominating this article for deletion or by !voting delete. You may notice that 101 articles were nominated for deletion the same day that this article was. There are hundreds of articles and files nominated for deletion every day, many of which ultimately end up getting deleted.

If you would like me to prove that I am fluent in Dutch I live in the Vancouver area and am available for lunch today. Let me know if you would like to meet up.

A word of advice - You might want to stop writing these long responses to everybody who !votes on this AFD. You're making a lot of assumptions about the other editors involved in this discussion (such as "all of you are judging this person's article based on her acting career"), and some of what you are saying, especially about people's children and personal lives, could be interpreted as personal attacks. MisterUnit (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken everything of the articles of 'Georgina Booth', so there is no point arguing anymore. Please just leave this topic alone now. Apparently nobody wants to give a new volunteer the chance to change the first article that I have ever written on this website and put a lot of effort into writing it. I think it is such a waste of time to argue whether a young teenage girl who is known to do a lot of good work for others does or does not deserve to be on this encyclopedia. Do not bother reversing what I have done just so you can delete it yourself.--Wikinow1 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit on the Georgina Booth page. Per WP:EDITATAFD please don't blank the page. I think you've had your say here and everybody understands your position. At this point it is probably best to just stop interfering and let the AfD run its course. MisterUnit (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as inappropriate for AfD discussion. In fact the title needs to remain at least for a day or so until the bot fixes a lot of double redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrown (SIBO)

Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrown (SIBO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Redundant page due to another user's typo. New page is here small intestinal bacterial overgrowth Tepi (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment. If I understand what's going on here correctly, this is actually a request to delete the redirect left behind by a page move. Technically, jurisdiction for such things is held by WP:RFD rather than this venue, although in this case, I think the redirect is sufficiently implausible to qualify for an R3 speedy. Regardless, since I performed the procedural close of the duplicate AFD, I'll let someone else consider whether further housekeeping here is warranted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed the R3 speedy deletion; it does not look like a likely typo. §everal⇒|Times 20:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Three Sons (season 1)

My Three Sons (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Listing of season episodes with plot summaries. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. BenTels (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: List of My Three Sons episodes already exists. I'm undecided as to whether plot summaries such as these are worth merging. §everal⇒|Times 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, the nom is incorrect. There are tons of TV shows covered in this manner. See e.g. House (season 3) or Veronica Mars (season 2). The "list of episodes" is not redundant to a per-season episode list, because the per-season article covers plot summaries, while the series-long list of episodes article will not. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. Standard for notable series coverage; neither a NOTDIR or NOTPLOT problem. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as said above, this is the standard per notable TV series, with hundreds of similar articles. Cavarrone (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tabera

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

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

He's a non-notable MMA fighter. He has 1 fight for a top tier MMA organization (a loss over 3 years ago) so he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. The article's only source is sherdog and that's not enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, no indications of notability, fails WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability criteria for MMA (WP:MMANOT) and martial arts (WP:MANOTE). Also lacks independent coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Cup Winners' Cup (trophy)

European Cup Winners' Cup (trophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Duplicating information that is at the parent article UEFA Cup Winners' Cup. Nothing to claim that the trophy is worthy of an article of its own. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NapHit (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't seem to be anything worth saying about the trophy itself..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The trophy deserves a section on the European Cup page, not its own article. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of UEFA club competition winners. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trophies won by European football clubs

List of international trophies won by European football clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Table appears to be a copy of List of UEFA club competition winners. As that list is a featured list and the bulk of what is here is there, this list should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as a plausable search term. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Direct copy. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. GiantSnowman 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In course of true love

In course of true love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Prod declined by author, so I'm putting this up for discussion. Article about a young author's first book, published by a small publisher apparently known best for a genre called 'Hinglish'. Two references provided: one is flipkart, a sales site, and the other is to Hindustan Times, but the reference goes to today's issue and I can't see this in there (I admit to flicking through and abandoning hope at the start of the sports pages). Peridon (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found the article, it's on page 19 (just past the sports section). The article is barely about the book, it's more about the author (and some about his next book), which is reflected in the current WP article. I support deletion on the basis of no significant coverage of this book. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dwaipayanc and I Jethrobot. GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Even if there is one mention in the paper, that's one source. One source does not show notability, you need several of them and they just don't seem to exist at this point in time. This just isn't notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable coverage or reviews in sight. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as A7: non-notable (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prof.Dr.salahddin babur

Prof.Dr.salahddin babur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I declined A7 as there is an assertion of notability. However, there are possible copyright problems - various portions of the text show up on various sites - and the whole thing is unreadable and non-encyclopaedic. It could possibly be regarded as promotional in purpose, like a sort of unwieldy CV. The article appears to be unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In an edit clash just before seeing this AfD, I deleted the majority of the article text as it was significantly matching a [BMJ review abstract] and therefore likely to match the overall article which is less visible. So there is much less in the article now, which is maybe a good things as it provides clearer focus on whether this biography meets the guidelines (WP:PROF?). AllyD (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it must come from somewhere - but couldn't find it. Good work. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just been trying to establish the status of 'Wilson College, London'. It doesn't appear to have an article here. Their website is plugging their 'Three week Summer Camp 2011', and they appear to offer courses in Business Management, Information Technology and English Language. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find Prof. Babur on the Faculty list of the London Graduate School, which is a "doctoral programme, postgraduate seminar and series of events in contemporary critical theory offered across a number of venues in central London and Kingston University" http://www.thelondongraduateschool.co.uk/faculty-list/ Peridon (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Googling for the Graduate School and Director of Health Studies leads to 6 hits - here, and prideofpakistan and LinkedIn profiles for the Professor. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PROF.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 01:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Nazar Hosein

Imran Nazar Hosein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO, no in-depth coverage of the person in secondary reliable sources Nableezy 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While his conspiracy theories are certainly notable for their asininity (e.g. that the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by an underwater nuclear explosion, or that the Pakistan Armed Forces are secretly led by Pakistani Zionists), there don't seem to be enough third party reliable sources to sustain this article - in particular, his entire biography is unsourced. Unless additional references can be found, this article should be deleted.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 01:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, not interesting, not anything.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His most notable book according to his website is : 'Jerusalem in the Quran' but I could not find any secondary reference of this. Wikipedia is not dedicated to give notoriaty to people without any. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a problem with MEMRI which is in my opinion a propaganda against Islam--Fluereveneno (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PVN Acharya

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SCHOLAR. All the references are to papers or conference presentations, etc. I can find [4] which is a casual mention of him, but Google books with variations on his name didn't produce anything useful, but others may have more luck. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 01:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 01:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article itself gives strong evidence that he doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR (at least, assuming that whoever decided not to give him tenure did so for good reason), the citation record in Google scholar also doesn't show much evidence of impact, and there's no evidence of WP:GNG in other forms either. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance in Elbonia The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Trans Air Flight 131

American Trans Air Flight 131 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable event. Its not even a airline incident. Flight 131 is the flight it completed earlier in the day. The plane caught fire on the ground with nobody on board. ...William 18:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable - as the article says No one was killed in the incident, but a firefighter was struck in the face by foam and was taken to the hospital. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS; non-notable mishap.  -- WikHead (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This wasn't even a flight. An airplane caught fire whilst sitting empty on the ground. This doesn't seem to have any significance to anything except maybe the passengers who probably got delayed and a firefighter who got some foam in his eyes. --Oakshade (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Completely and utterly non notable. Petebutt (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Please wait at least 3 months to renominate. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVBViewer

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

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

Relisting due to a no consensus, non administrator close. Article blatently fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NSOFT. Every "keep vote" in the previous debate except one was created specifically for that deletion discussion. Five long term, trusted and established Wikipedia editors made reasoned arguments with clear consensus as "Delete". Article was previously deleted under PROD and once as G11 and twice created by the software's author(WP:COI), Christian Hackbart (CHackbart (talk · contribs)) and shortly after AFD nomination and an announcement on DVBViewer's forums (@ 13 August 2012 - 19:34) these WP:SPA accounts were created;

• 23:09, 13 August 2012 Patrick 1bc0 (talk · contribs) created a user account
• 20:53, 13 August 2012 Ezekial 9 (talk · contribs) created a user account

Article does contain multiple links masquerading as references, but a closer look reveals they are merely trivial coverage or mentions or in some cases have a "strong connection" with the subject. The nature being "bundled"/"included" by hardware or some other manufacturer or vendor fails the primary test of being "independent" of the subject... nor would the subject "inherit" notability due to being so closely associated. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ...[4]". Also see See WikiProject Spam report. Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just for the record: I still see no proof of notability regarding this product and, for now, stand by my !vote from the last AfD. -- BenTels (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion review really would have been a better idea, and since this is essentially an extension of the previous discussion, all participants there should have been notified. I've notified them now. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: only one source with significant coverage doesn't justify a separate article per WP:GNG. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion review would definitely have been a better idea. You can't just relist until you get a result you like (see WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED). List at DRV which is the proper venue for challenging a close.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wait a while. Even after a non-consensus close, relisting immediately at AfD is very poor practice. There is much more chance of obtaining consensus and discouraging any SPAs if you wait a few weeks. I differ from others in not recommending Del Rev either--the close took account of the referencing, not vote counting. It recognized that the GNG was met, and saw the delete arguments as people insisting that higher standards should be applied to software. (I see it slightly differently, that the question was whether the other sources beyond the admitted significant review amounted to significant coverage). There was an attempt to argue that the software was not good software, basing the argument on NSOFT, which ignored the fact that NSOFT explicitly recognizes the importance of the software as an alternative to the GNG, not as an additional criterion. I think as an habitué of Del Rev that in such circumstances the del rev would have told you to wait and place a second afd. If this sounds circular, it rather means that a second attempt to delete it immediately would not get much traction anywhere. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 00:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and as per DGG, wait a while. Without predjudice to the closure, immediately relisting an AfD is discouraged, and the risk is high that SPA may comment again which may possibly cloud the issue as regards notability guidelines simply resulting in no consensus again. Ideally, the outcome for this article needs to be decided one way or the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Besides the fact that the original article has been created by one of the author(s) of the software, it has been rewritten multiple times and suits the standard for software here in wikipedia more than enough. I also think (according to DGG) it is not wise to create AfD´s until the article is deleted. As far as i remembers, all tv adapters i brought here where shipped with the DVBViewer - or at least one of its derivates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.29.58 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) — 87.143.29.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep with my original arguments from first nomination (read there, posting them here again would be as pointless as the second nomination directly after the first).
  Additionally to the very honourable but rather general mention in PC Magazin 03/2007 I found a much more specific mention in an earlier issue of the magazine (that I had in mind initially) that is significant without doubt. In PC Magazin 10/2006 there's a 5-page article concerning DVB-S2 reception using personal computers (it was state of the art at that time, DVB-S2 PC-cards just became readily available on the market). Regarding alternative software there's a half-page-box exclusively covering DVBViewer praising and describing all of it's features. Especially BDA support for most of the (at that time) brand-new DVB-S2 cards, as well as the sophisticated rendering pipeline (allowing for decoding of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC stream and rendering in real time) were pointed out, beeing crucial aspects of HDTV playback. --Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Masao Takahashi. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June Takahashi

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

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

Person of questionable notability. Google news search on "June Takahashi" shows only 13 results, with only 4 of those actually mentioning the subject only in passing. Standard search shows various social media and simple directory listings - no significant coverage of this person found. WP:NOTINHERITED from her husband. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you're being overzealous, and a bit sexist by suggesting that her only accomplishment is her marriage. She was one of the first Canadian women to earn a black belt in Judo and, perhaps more importantly, is the highest ranked female judoka in the country (though this rank is shared with a few other women). I look forward to hearing from other editors. CanadianJudoka (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Masao Takahashi There's nothing to show that she meets WP:MANOTE. As many AfD discussions have shown, a high rank is not sufficient to show notablility--a number of 10th dans have been deleted. It's not about being sexist, it's about showing notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it is the achievement of these ranks (both black belt and now sixth-degree) as a woman in Canada that makes her notable. The idea of women practising Judo at all was controversial for quite some time, and the fact that Takahashi achieved her black belt so early, and outside of Japan, is itself significant. Her current rank is the highest achieved by any woman in Canada, and less than ten women have achieved that rank in the 100 year history of Canadian Judo. She has also played a significant role in building women's Judo in Canada, both as a coach and an administrator, but unfortunately the governing organization's documentation of this is spotty on the web. CanadianJudoka (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I didn't find anything that shows she meets the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Masao Takahashi - As much as I would like to vote for Keep I am inclined to agree with comments above that state this article fails WP:MANOTE. Getting ranked internally within a system is not sufficient to establish notability. Unless there is more documentation on her role in developing women's Judo in Canada through independently verifiable sources, her lack of involvement in international competition of any kind supports a merge. In fact, the three articles for her children are in and of themselves worthy of consideration for a merge into one article for the family's legacy in Canadian Judo. Jun Kayama 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and Keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staunton Mall

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

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

This is a non-notable mall. There is some coverage, but it's all routine; changes of ownership, changes of name, and so on. Most of the coverage consists of mere mentions of the mall. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuanton Mall. Not sure now if that title creation was an end around protection at this title? No opinion on this article/AFD StarM 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, precedent is that malls are notable and that coverage of this source is sufficient (compare Valley Mall (Harrisonburg), which was kept in 2008 with similar levels of coverage). The first source gives significant mention of the mall in its earliest days. Further coverage here and here, along with plenty more under its early-2000s name of "Colonial Mall Staunton". The coverage already in the article looks to be more than "mere mentions" to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I see you sent this mall to AFD in 2007 and it was deleted, even though three of those sources you list are from prior to 2007. So things have changed by now in terms of consensus about shopping malls? The Harrisonburg Mall seems to me to have a different level of coverage, and to be a different level of thingn in terms of notability. You mentioned at my talk page that consensus is that malls are notable, but I don't see a policy. Maybe this one's not. I saw the articles you found, and it still seems routine. I actually read the two articles from the newsleader that are paywalled in your links and they didn't convince me either. I will withdraw if I'm wrong about consensus regarding malls, though. Perhaps it's time to write WP:MALLN?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Thanks to Ten Pound Hammer for pointing out WP:NPLACE in WP:OUTCOMES, which mentions that "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls and individual shops are generally deleted." I think I'll leave this AFD discussion running anyway, because I think the mall at hand is on the boundary. It's physically larger than a strip mall, but it's smaller by a number of important metrics than many, many strip malls, some of which get as much or more coverage (e.g. see Ten Pound Hammer's first source up there, which mentions only that two homemade bombs blew up at the mall; homemade bombs blow up at strip malls too, and lots of other places, without conferring notability). I'm serious about writing WP:MALLN if anyone's interested in thinking about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be WP:NMALL? - Dravecky (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Is there some WP:SHORTCUTSTONOTABILITYSTANDARDSNAMINGCONVENTIONS page that I've missed somewhere? What shall we do about WP:LISTN?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enclosed shopping malls are considered notable. Dough4872 01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? Is there some policy we've all missed? Shouldn't its notability be judged on the quality of the sources and the applicable notability guideline, which in this case must be the GNG? I don't want to hassle you about your opinion, but I'm really curious as to why enclosed shopping malls (and you're saying regardless of size? because there are some awfully teensy ones around) are automatically notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enclosed malls are major commercial centers and shopping destinations for an area. They provide a lot of jobs and contribute a lot to the local economy, making them a notable part of the community. Dough4872 01:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your time!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Inherent notability aside, there is actually a lot of news coverage of the mall. In addition to the sources already in the article, there's this report on mall vacancies, plus this article about a bookstore leaving, plus another article about the mall losing an anchor; it seems like there's been quite a bit of discussion of the mall's future in the past few years, which adds up to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw— OK, TheCatalyst convinces me. WP could probably use NMALL at some point, though. Anyone interested?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied G11.. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craftpro

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

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

доктор прагматик 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Nominator did not provide any deletion rationale, but the article is a valid speedy under both G11 and A7. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Non-ntable and spam to boot.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trailer (book). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic Book Trailer

Cinematic Book Trailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a fork of Trailer (book) which uses the adjective "cinematic" to make it seem like book trailers with higher production values are a whole new category. The only good source used, Chicago Tribune, says that book trailers have been poorly made in the past and that some are improving in quality, but does not use the term "cinematic book trailer" or state that such cinematic book trailers are a new type. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Trailer (book) - nothing here that cannot be found there. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My main concern is that people understand the difference between a normal book trailer and a "cinematic" book trailer. There is obviously a difference, and it is starting to become a very popular form of promotion and marketing. I did not feel putting "cinematic book trailer" as a separate section in the already existing "Trailer(Book)" page would do this form of media justice. I encourage you to consider leaving this page up, but ultimately if it is decided that it is in the best interest for viewers to take it down, I will simply have to make the distinction clear on the existing "Trailer(Book)" page. I look forward to all of your advice on how we can get this issue resolved.Vvenk001 (talk) 17 August 2012 (UTC)— Vvenk001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Are there any reliable sources that actually say that cinematic book trailers are different? There is one newspaper column and one blog post which say that some book trailers are better than others, but not that there is a new type. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just putting my two cents in... the idea of "cinematic book trailers" is not new. This has been done since at least the 80s, with a great early example being John Farris's Wildwood. It could still be considered somewhat traditional, but it did have acting in it. (Not great acting, but it's acting.) It's just that a lot of early book trailers tend to get forgotten because they weren't really mainstream enough to where tons of people were archiving them like the movie trailers today, so a lot of the news sources are treating it like it's a new idea to use book trailers and to have them mostly acted out. They've always been present but with the Internet making it easier to archive and watch, it just seems like it's new. I'll see what I can find, but I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a difference between the two and it’s not just production value, it’s also the form. Book trailers feature stock stills, stock video, slideshows and graphic design. Cinematic book trailers are more like movies. Some feature celebrities, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfzuOu4UIOU others don’t show the characters at all http://www.theotherhouse.com/our-work/what-the-night-knows/. Some have followed the form of the music video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SYfDafLOQk while others have been shot as full length scenes from a motion picture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omk_tKYhf4c. There is a big difference between throwing together generic media on an iMac and the actual production of a book trailer, enough of a difference that it warrants distinction with the word “cinematic.” When you google both of them, the results and the content and the form are appropriately distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrymiller2010 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do know there's a difference, but the biggest part is trying to find reliable sources to back up that the term "cinematic book trailer" is anything other than a neologism to describe a higher grade of book trailers that are more like movie trailers. There are some that mention the term, but generally the trailers are just referred to by the generic "book trailer" term. I think that's what the biggest fuss is about. It's just too new of a term, so at most what it could be is a redirect to the book trailer article with a very brief mention that the higher quality trailers are called "cinematic book trailers". I've done a search throughout the night and I just don't see where the term is heavily enough used and properly sourced enough to warrant a completely separate article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Trailer (book)/Delete. I've made a mention to the term in the book trailer article, but ultimately this is just a neologism used to describe a slightly different format of book trailer. A search on Google does not bring up mention of the term in the news and the literary sites that feature book trailers of this nature simply refer to them as "book trailers". Even the publishers seem to refer to them predominantly as book trailers or book commercials rather than call them cinematic book trailers. (Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], Hutton Stars in His First Book Trailer, [11]) To be honest, the only people who are predominantly referring to the trailers as "cinematic book trailers" are a group of sites that produce and sell them. (As someone who frequents many of the various book blogs, sites, and such, I can personally vouch that the term is not very widely used.) To show that the term is anything more than a neologism or a marketing term you'd have to show that the general public beyond the sellers are using it. They aren't. If I can be blunt, a redirect would actually be fairly generous when you consider that almost nobody uses the term. (I don't mean to sound harsh, but a search with "cinematic book trailers" and "cinematic book trailer" only brings up about 11-12K of results, which aren't that many.) In the end it's just a neologism and there's just not enough here to justify a separate article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well in the case of a redirect I think a distinction needs to be made on the page even if it just acknowledges the newer form that garners 11-12k hits on a search. I mean if it's not widely used enough yet to justify its own page. I'm not familiar enough with Wiki's standards to know what sort of numerical search results justify a new page. Tokyogirl79 is correct in that there are not many articles that discuss the differences between the terms. In all fairness though a search brings up way more than just production companies, in fact a lot of those "companies" are pretty difficult to find. I just did a search for the term "cinematic book trailer" and in 3 pages saw only one company and it was nowhere near the top of the results. Rather there is a list of "cinematic book trailers posted by authors or video forums such as trailerspy.com and publishers such as www.greenleafbookgroup.com. Most of the results I saw are not businesses and seem to signify that the term is used often and has a separate meaning from book trailer, but is not as popular of a term as its generic predecessor. However when you do a search for the term "book trailer," there are more companies that come up immediately than when you type the term "cinematic book trailers."henrymiller2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — henrymiller2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Really, 11-12K isn't that much when it comes to ghits, not when you compare that to "book trailer" which gets over five million hits. This means that less than 1% of the internet is using this term, which means that it's not a common enough term in the grand scheme of things. (WP:NOTNEO) Wikipedia isn't a way to increase usage of this term. It's just not really a used term and it's considered a neologism. Neologisms are rarely used on Wikipedia unless they can show that it's notable and more than just a new term being thrown about. It honestly doesn't matter if a handful of people are using the term, that handful of people aren't showing that the term has any notability at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "handful" of people are very much showing that the term has notability," since many notable publishers and writers are using these cinematic book trailers and calling them that, and some of them use notable public figures in the trailers. Anthony Swofford, Adam Wilson, Julie Klam, Timothy Hutton and Eric Roberts are all notable people with wikipedia pages to back up their notoriety. These trailers were of course produced by companies or they would not exist, but they do exist and because the market is open and the term isn't as old as "book trailer" doesn't make it irrelevant or unworthy of acknowledging its existence.Vvenk001 20 August 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Vvenk001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Thing is, very few of them actually call them specifically by this name. There's some mention of "cinematic" in relation to some of the trailers, but never really enough to where this specific term is being commonly used. Again, this is a neologism and it does not warrant an article of its own. There's a mention of it in the main article for book trailers as well as a mention about the differences between trailers, but there's absolutely zero need for a separate article about this. Thing is, to show that it has any notability you'd have to show that more than a handful of people are using this term. While this doesn't mean that "cinematic book trailer" couldn't eventually become more than a neologism, it isn't a notable or well used term now. As far as notable people using the term or starring in the clips, that notability is not transferred to the term. It just means that a notable actor is starring in a trailer that the production company terms a "cinematic book trailer" or that a publishing company called a trailer cinematic or used the term once in a while. The predominant term for book trailers is "book trailer" and this is ultimately a neologism for a higher grade of trailers that everyone is predominantly (and almost exclusively) calling simply "book trailer". I'm sorry, but the term doesn't have notability simply because you believe it does. To show that a term is something other than a neologism, you need lots of sources to show that it's commonly in use. You'd have to have tons of articles that specifically use this term over a long period of time. Not drop the term "cinematic" in the article in general, but use the term "cinematic book trailer" specifically. Out of the sources given, here's what we have on the article:

1. [12] This one doesn't mention "cinematic" at all.
2. [13] This also doesn't mention the term, just has the author saying that book trailers are relatively new. (It isn't, book trailers of varying sorts have been around since at least the 80s, if not earlier.) In any case, this just doesn't show notability for the term either.
3. [14] This is just a YT video. At no point is this described as a "cinematic book trailer" by the publisher on this page. This can't show notability for the term.

There's a lot of mention of people calling things "cinematic book trailers" but at no point are we given links to reliable sources that are actually calling any of these book trailers "cinematic book trailers". Sure there's the people who produce the stuff calling it that, but where are the people who are saying things to back up Most recently Oscar-nominated actor Eric Roberts starred in what's being called a "cinematic book trailer" for Deborah Henry's debut novel "The Whipping Club." By that I mean that people are calling the trailer a "cinematic book trailer". I'm not questioning that various people are starring in these book trailers, just that this term is being bandied about to the degree to which you and a handful of other incredibly new users are claiming it is. You both have signed up only to edit an article about book trailers and are generally unaware of Wikipedia's notability policies and policies about neologisms. I'm not saying this to be mean, just saying that this term is too new to merit an article about this term or even really anything more than a mention that the term is being used along with various other terms to describe book trailers, if even that. It's just that new of a term and there's no guarantee that it'll ever get more of a mention than it is now. I'm also going to apologize for this if neither of you are affiliated with any of the companies mentioned in the page, but I have to ask: considering that both of you have been editing only this article and the article repeatedly hotlinks to various companies, are either of you affiliated with any of the companies listed in this article, either because you work directly for them, know someone in the company, or have been hired by the company to produce the article? There's no rule against doing this, (although you are supposed to state if you have a COI) but I'm a little worried that you might have a conflict of interest that might keep you from viewing everything as neutrally as someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This really just seems like an unnecesarry split from Trailer (Book), and Tokyogirl79 already merged the relevant information into that article. I suppose this page can be left as a redirect if people actually think that this may be a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GedUK  13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonshiny Day

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

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

Article about a television series that does not seem to be notable. Unreferenced. No sources directly evident from Google, GNews, Gbooks. BenTels (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are at least the possibility of sources ([15], [16]) but I'm not certain they are adequate in terms of depth of coverage and independence. I would suggest a redirect to Trinity Television, however that article was speedied A7 back in 2009, which doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in articles about their individual programs. If this is salvaged, POV issues will also need to be addressed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless something better in references appears. From the article, it doesn't look to have been up there with Sesame St or even down there with Teletubbies. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babajide Ogunbiyi

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

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

Player who fails N:FOOTY, still fails GNG in my opinion and who was just released from a football club that is fully-pro without making an appearance (the fact that he would make an appearance was one of the reasons people used for the last AfD for keep).--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2012 (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/2012 August 17. Snotbot  t • c »  15:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt. We can not discuss him every two weeks. He was proven to fail WP:NFOOTY.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Examples include: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dragonlance characters#Dragons. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darlantan

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

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of Dragonlance characters#Dragons, as this is a possible search term, and that merge was already suggested on the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Torchiest. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GedUK  13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Margulis

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

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

The content in this biographical article is almost entirely unsourced. While the subject of this article is mentioned in some publications, those publications feature this person as an arbitrary example and not as the focus of the article.

This person is a magazine editor who has published many articles but so have many other editors - see WP:MILL. I assert that the sources do not verify this article's content, and that even if they did, the article's content does not establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although she has written many articles, I was unable to find any sources that establish the notability of Ms Margulis herself. None of the existing references support notability. From a Google search, there are blog entries such as this. Gillian Mackenzie agency doesn't seem to be a reliable third party source. (I disagree with Bluerasberry's claim that the article's content does not establish notability. If that were the case, the article would be a CSD A7 candidate.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 00:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only evident third-party verifiability here is in relation to The Vaccine War, which itself was mentioned in a very slanted manner. ("Nasty ol' pro-vac PBS slander entirely innocent Ashland mom.") The single-article single author, and the resumeish tone of the article, causes a strong suspicion of something astroturfish occurring here. Better to start again from the ground up, if broader notability is established at a later date. 84.203.39.242 (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GedUK  13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti shi'ism

Anti shi'ism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unsupported piece of POV writing. A probable magnet for edit wars and POV clashes (see recent edits). Would need to be totally rewritten to be encyclopedic. Not quite an attack page speedy in my view, but... There might possibly be a valid and useful article on this topic, but this text isn't it -- this isn't any part of such an article or even a start on one. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom, unless totally rewritten to comply with policies, particularly WP:NPOV. DES ^(talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for messing with you, but I'm striking your comment because you are the nominator. Usually, the nominator's nomination is a good enough way to tell people you want this article deleted, so there is no need to put in a separate !vote. It's quite confusing, too. Again, sorry for this! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sometimes nominate procedurally, articles about which i am neutral. Therefore, I always include a separate comment with a !vote after my nomination. Also, when I want to indicate an acceptable alternative such as redirection, i do so in the added comment. It also lets the closer simply look through the bolded comments. I find such helpful when i close AfDs. A strike out implies that i have changed my views, which i have not here. Please do not so adjust my comments in future. DES ^(talk) 18:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the material currently present. I think that the topic could probably support an article (although I'm not persuaded it would be under this name), but I have absolutely no concerns about the need to preserve the current material from a licensing perspective; what is here now is really not compatible with a NPOV Wikipedia article as the community understands it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Squeamish. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenEmulator

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

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

Not notable, just an ad. Content is just a POV list of features. All Google hits are just web pages for the product itself or announcements by the developer. Not a significant product, not important. Doesn't deserve an article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete I'm inclined to keep this, as emulators, even with poorly written articles, are an interesting topic. However they have to make some effort at writing style, sourcing and demonstrating notability. This one just isn't trying. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please keep this. There are numerous hits on Google (see), which indicate the widespread knowledge under professionals (I mean people who know something about emulators). I do agree emulators are an interesting topic. I'm from Belgium and even I know it. Also, the Dutch Wikipedia has an article about OpenEmulator. I will try to make this article more neutral and wikify it a bit. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's notable enough to merit an article. Most of the hits on the first page of results (via Google) are from the developer of OpenEmulator. This software just hasn't garnered much attention. I wouldn't be opposed to an article sometime in the future when it gains more notability. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have also edited the article to keep only the barest necessary descriptions. --Gortu (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a keep vote then? The article doesn't have to be bare and, as a matter of fact, shouldn't. It just needs to be NPOV and needs to demonstrate why it's notable, by verifiable third-party references. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a quicker than normal renomination. (Please wait at least one month.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:5

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}}.

Genesis 1:5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. The page contains very little commentary, and even that reads like obvious WP:OR. It would be possible to create an article, but this is not it. I cannot even see any point keeping the page history behind a redirect. I voted to keep Genesis 1:2 after it was expanded, but unless Genesis 1:5 is improved shortly then it should go. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 17 August 2012 (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/2012 August 17. Snotbot  t • c »  13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect. Intro definitely reads like wp:or; and is already covered in Genesis creation narrative and Bereishit (parsha). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A bible verse translation center is another thing that Wikipedia is not. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Poor writing is not a reason for deletion. This article clearly passes our general notability guideline, as a simple Google Books search demonstrates. If the article cannot currently stand on its own, it should be redirected to Genesis creation narrative. There is no added benefit to getting rid of the page history. Neelix (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that this is the manner we're best served in presenting information about these Biblical passages. While it's true that probably every Bible verse has seem some examination by religious scholars, theologians, and textual interpreters in the intervening centuries (since versification in the 1550s), I'm dubious that most Bible verses are a "topic" in and of themselves rather than a component of the wider whole. The minutiae of Shakespeare's works have been well-examined, but we present articles about his plays, not about each act. Certainly, there are going to be some Bible verses that have attracted particularly renowned focus such that we can craft an in-depth article: John 3:16, John 11:35, and, yes, probably Genesis 1:1, for example. But I don't see that here, and the state of the article does nothing to convince me otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. My rationale has not changed, but there's no compelling reason to expunge the page history and this is a plausible search term. I'm ambivalent as to whether Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis is the more appropriate destination, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Book of Genesis, at least until a content fork is necessary. §everal⇒|Times 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first few verses of Genesis have thousands of years of detailed Christian and Jewish commentary. There is plenty of material for an article here, as there was for Genesis 1:4. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with these by-verse Bible articles is that the above statement, strictly speaking, isn't true. For example, while the Zohar engaged in a great deal of detailed analysis and interpretation of Torah passages, it is inaccurate to say that it did so by verse, because the Zohar predates Biblical versification. Rather, any source prior to ~1550 necessarily examined Biblical passages in a larger context (and most after that date have done so as well): either by book, by narrative section, or in some cases, by parshah. I do not dispute that there has been a great deal of historical attention paid to these words; I dispute that they are independently significant, any more than each act and scene of a notable play is, itself, worthy of an independent article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that adds to the case for merging this (and verse 3) into the page on verse 4. – Fayenatic London 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thousands of years of commentary may pre-date versification, but since the commentary is by sentence it corresponds to the versified structure. Merger is a possibility, but there is more than enough material for an article here, if someone will make the effort. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The interpretation from the Kabbalah can probably be expanded significantly, but would need more expertise than I have. -- 202.124.74.10 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Genesis 1:4. The two verses together constitute a single "incident" in the creation story. The other verse now has a substantial aricle - unless substantially expanded. Note my vote on Genesis 1:4 is to Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I have no objection to merging this page into Genesis 1:4 now that the latter has been expanded and improved. In fact, merging Genesis 1:3 into it as well might be a good outcome, as these three verses form a closely connected narrative of the first day. I suggest that the merged article should initially be moved to Genesis 1:3–5, pending a separate discussion on renaming e.g. to First day of Creation, Creation of light (Bible) or Let there be light (Bible). – Fayenatic London 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key axiom and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination) and why this article as well as the two others about Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 describing the First Day of Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to Judeo-Christian civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both WP:N and there are plenty of WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this argument actually underscores the reason why this material shouldn't be presented in this manner. No one is arguing that Wikipedia should not discuss the opening lines of Genesis. The references which discuss this material do not examine each line in isolation; they interpret these verses as part of a wider whole -- a "coherent set". Indeed, before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all! Your comparison is apt, however; we would not have separate articles for only a couple sentences out of a famous paragraph ... but that is because we would not partition that paragraph out into articles for each sentence whatsoever (for example, Four score and seven years ago is a redirect to Gettysburg Address). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Squemish: Either the first five verses are kept together as a unit, and improved, or they do not make sense separated from each other. The importance of the first two verses has been acknowledged and affirmed by multiple AfDs, but in terms of logic and coherence they can only make sense if all five verses are cited. But they should not be split up and palmed off into "themes" because that's not how the Bible is read and understood. As for your contention that "before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all!" you are wrong because in Judaism there are verses and smaller divisions and the first five verses are one unit, see Parashah#Spacing techniques, this goes back way before the 1500s, to the +-3000 year Masoretic Text. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are entirely correct that the parashot predate the versification of the Bible (indeed, even some of the Dead Sea Scrolls use a system of spacing), however the parashot differ from versification in a number of aspects, including, most importantly, the fact that they are not numbered (some have specific names, but this isn't one of them). Prior to Robert Estienne, there was no term of reference specifically to the segment of text now considered Genesis 1:5. With the history aside, I still haven't seen any evidence that there are sources which discuss this verse in isolation. Certainly there are sources which examine this verse, but only in some wider context. That is true of both of the cited references. Kissling spends page 101 discussing this verse, to be certain, but that is in the wider context of an examination of the first day, and then again in a wider context of the entire creation narrative (see the structural outline on p.53); it is even more true of the Zohar, which predates the modern system of versification entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge: Genesis 1:3–5 although a good proposal from Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 (In the beginning). So now we are at a tug of war for verse 3. So, perhaps there is consideration to merge them all into Genesis 1:1-5 as IZAK (talk · contribs) put it "the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible". Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, Genesis creation narrative seems hazy on where verse 3 belongs, and there's also too much material to merge Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:3, Let there be light, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 together. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let there be light is an article on the use of the phrase in culture; that page again has a distinct scope, and I don't think anyone is proposing to merge it. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The material added to the article, as well sthe numerous sources available that address this specific verse, demonstrate its notability on a standalone basis. The foucs on this article should be on expansion, rather than deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; there's no doubt that enough material exists in Jewish and Christian commentary for such an expansion. I've added a bit more, and could go on for pages if I had the time. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And that brings me to another point... The discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal, Masem (talk · contribs) states, "It is the content of these articles that must not be made into devotional compendiums. And its clear that consensus is that some of these, like the parshas, are written inappropriately for Wikipedia because they are based on teaching the faith, not summarizing it. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So I argue that the Genesis creation narrative serves to summarize, encyclopedicly, what ought to be addressed. For the amount of commentaries just on Gen. 1-5 alone, may teeter off into POV commentaries that might bog the article down into wp:undue, when all that is needed is a proper summary of terms and phrases from mainstream and appropriate minor groups which is already attempted at both the Genesis creation narrative article and Jewish commentaries at Bereishit (parsha). Why do we need to duplicate such material into undue weight? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there is approximately +28,190 bytes worth of Jewish commentary specifically for Genesis 1:1-5 at Bereishit (parsha).   — Jasonasosa 09:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 are appropriate spin-off articles of Genesis creation narrative (the latter article would be too long if it absorbed those articles). These spin-off articles are encyclopaedic and do not breach WP:UNDUE. Bereishit (parsha) does seem to be an article with a specifically Jewish POV, but even if that's the case, it's not really a point for this AfD. -- 202.124.75.67 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is... Genesis creation narrative and Bereishit (parsha) are good enough and do not need spin offs. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those both have much wider scope, and the content of these pages would unbalance them. IMHO Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are preliminary to the six days, but verses 3-5 go together as a narrative of Day 1, hence my merge proposal. I don't understand the alleged conflict with Genesis 1:1-3 (which was deleted years ago). BTW I revised Genesis creation narrative#In the beginning, during the course of this discussion, moving (inter alia) verse 3 into Day 1, as that and other headings were previously in a muddled order; even then I didn't get it quite right (sorry), but hope that it is now clear. – – Fayenatic London 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have wider scope, but insufficient depth, given the history and influence of these initial verses of Genesis. It seems there's an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here. Fayenatic's suggestion of a merge is a viable possibility, although I still think this article can fly on its own. -- 202.124.72.215 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per IZAK et al. This issue appears to have been dealt with in previous AfDs.75.150.187.201 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZAK actually wrote in favour of keeping these verses "together as a unit". I don't see anything in his contribution which would oppose merger of verses 3, 4 and 5. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not forum for an extended commentary and cross-comparision on every scriptural verse in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Rig Veda, Upanishad, etc, etc. this is where this leads. This should primarily be kept (as much as possible) to topics and subjects not a continuous or consecutive list of verses of scripture with separate articles. I am sure there is a Bible Wiki out there somewhere for that.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw opinion: I withdraw my above opinions and 'vote' regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings. I do not support further biblical verse article listings or expansions and feel the issues here with these articles are not solvable by AfD discussion and should arise organically through the primary contributing editors. So let it be done. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is proposing to take this series further than verse 5. Certain introductory passages and other verses are notable on their own, e.g. John 1:1. IMHO the articles on Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 are now worth keeping, but verses 3 to 5 would be better together. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my opinion to Merge this and verse 3 into the better article on verse 4. While this AFD has been running, the page has been expanded a little, but is still not as convincing as a standalone article as Genesis 1:4. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Which again conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 as a set for (In the beginning). So we are back to a tug-of-war for verse 3. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My suggestion, as other's here have mentioned as well, is to where this individual extended verse commentary ARTICLE listing leads. The articles and information should be limited and kept from "scope-creep", and listed as topics and subject titles and/or merged with such. Delete the listing, merge all information on the subject it addresses into one article. (Was addressing Fayenatics's comments.) No need for "tug-of wars". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::The merge proposed creates a tug of war between Gen.1:1-3 (even if stand alone articles) and Gen.1:3-5 (even if merged as one article). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Fayenatic london (talk · contribs); I now support a merge for Genesis 1:3-5. I was mistaken about verse 3. I checked 13:54, 21 August 2012‎ Fayenatic london (talk - contribs)‎ . . (66,721 bytes) (+23)‎ . . ("1:1–1:2–3 " seems to have been a typo; article consistently refers to 1:1–2:3, i.e. the first chapter plus the first three verses of chapter 2 as a single pericope) (undo) and this user is correct per Levenson, Jon D. (2004). "Genesis: introduction and annotations". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Jewish study Bible. Oxford, p. 13. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the creation of an article called "Genesis 1:3-5" because it sets bad precedent, suggesting that an article can deal with a string of verses that have a subjective beginning and end point (here, Genesis 1:3 and 1:5). Groupings of verses are valid subjects for Wikipedia articles, but the groupings themselves should have named precedent in the secondary literature (ex. Abraham and Lot's conflict, Blessing of Jacob, Confusion of tongues). Neelix (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelix, Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) already proposed a renaming for Genesis 1:3–5 after said page is created. If you notice above, the User suggested First day of Creation, Creation of light (Bible) or Let there be light (Bible) as possible name changes.   — Jasonasosa 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a subject here: "First day of creation". See e.g. The New American Commentary Volume 1 - Genesis 1-11, page 145. I suggested this and alternative titles above. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing a merger; I am opposing the initial move to "Genesis 1:3-5". If we cannot decide on a more well-accepted title, then perhaps we are not selecting the appropriate string of verses. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I propose moving the merged page straight First day of Creation. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since this is the forum for discussing Genesis 1:3, it would see that if it's not going to be kept, the most natural thing to do would be to redirect it to Let there be light rather than Genesis 1:4. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 should both be redirected to Let there be light and then Genesis 1:5 can be deleted.  — Jasonasosa 21:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the community consensus is to keep Genesis 1:4. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems strange to redirect Genesis 1:3 while having Genesis 1:4 to stand alone, when they are part of the same subject. meh   — Jasonasosa 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If Genesis 1:3 is going to be merged, content should probably go into both Let there be light and Genesis 1:3–5 (possibly to be renamed). Then the relation of those two articles should be looked at. I still think that Genesis 1:5 is fine on it's own however. I've seen no policy-based arguments for getting rid of it. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current article Let there be light seems to be a kind of "Genesis 1:3 in popular culture." It's probably not a good merge target for Genesis 1:3. -- 202.124.73.175 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is not well-written yet doesn't mean that it isn't a good merger target. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current article Let there be light should be left, separate from the discussion of the meaning of the Biblical verses. The split is also about right already. Even though it has a section on etymology, there's a reason for that being on that page: to explain the two different Latin translations which are used as mottos. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do not endorse merging Genesis 1:3, if Genesis 1:4 is not going to be merged either. Either they all stand alone or redirect them all. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Genesis 1:4 is not an option, since consensus was to keep that article. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we got that already...   — Jasonasosa 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to keep Genesis 1:4 after it was expanded is no bar against merging smaller articles into it, nor against renaming (moving & redirecting) accordingly. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to make this all-or-nothing. All of these verses are sufficiently notable to stand on their own if they were only sufficiently worked-on; the fact that Genesis 1:4 is already sufficiently worked-on to stand on its own simply means that it is a sub-article of the overarching article, whatever that is determined to be. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you demonstrate that each of these verses is sufficiently notable? There's plenty of Biblical commentary on just about any verse, but not every verse has wider cultural significance deserving an article in a general encyclopedia. I'm satisfied of notability in the cases of verse 1 & v2, but it seems to me that 3-5 make a better unit (first day of creation) to be discussed as a combined text rather than each having a page on their own. (See e.g. the layout of Gen 1:1–13 in the NIV.) For the record, I do not envisage that additional articles should be created for Day 2 etc; Day 1 has more notability, because it's the first, and because of the cultural resonances. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand more strongly with Fayenatic london (talk · contribs)'s argument.   — Jasonasosa 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are defining "wider cultural significance"; that is not a term used in our notability guidelines. All of the notability guidelines I can see are clearly passed by each of these verses. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's more than enough reliable sources for Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:5 to take them up to the level of Genesis 1:4, which was kept. Genesis 1:3 is particularly notable because of the phrase let there be light, but both Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5 satisfy WP:N as well. The fact that only some sources are currently in the articles is not a reason for deletion; AfD decisions are made on the basis of what the article could become. -- 202.124.75.38 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

What is this? This could possibly be an article some day, but now it's just a serious of mostly disconnected links about NASA and the Armenian Genocide. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems like it was created as a shell equivalent to Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, which is a good article, but nothing has been built here outside of a skeleton list of links. Definitely can do with an expansion to resemble the 2008 article, though it definitely needs TLC in the next seven days. None however and I would argue for delete if it hasn't been built up. Nate • (chatter) 08:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Delete Obvious that no expansion has taken place outside of the additions of hemp/marijuana headings that probably will never be addressed. Userfy is possible if someone picks up the ball, but this article can't continue in this form. Nate • (chatter) 06:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's already been around for three months, with no substantive activity and still no content. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The 2008 version is a good and useful article; it would seem that the 2012 contest would merit a similar article. This, at least in its current form, ain't it. Is there enough useful formatting or (cited!) information to warrant a move into the userspace as a draft? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy as a draft, per UltraExactZZ, if possible. Has potential to be a legitimate article like its 2008 predecessor, and can be recreated if and when actual content is added. Until then, however, it is little more than an unencyclopedic collection of wikilinks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page could be very important very soon. I think we should add to it rather than delete it.--pauperoooonnndkj
• Delete a bunch of empty sections with headings of issues and some internal links, please Go Phightins! (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax ... discospinster _talk 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOP_BOY_(Costarrica's_Next_Top_Model),_Cycle_2

TOP_BOY_(Costarrica's_Next_Top_Model),_Cycle_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

May fail WP:Crystal? It's an upcoming television show and the article has no citations and the show hasn't even aired yet. SarahStierch (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Parkway

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

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

Swope Parkway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

A street, with no apparent notability. PROD was removed by original editor without comment. PamD 06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and then merge and redirect to U.S. Route 56#Missouri; this is valid information about a portion of a numbered U.S. highway (and there's actually more in the history of this article about other portions of the route). --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable road, and likely an ambiguous redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ordinary city street. Dough4872 12:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Swope Parkway should probably go too. --Rschen7754 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Arxiloxos --VikÞor | Talk 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—per Bushranger. Imzadi 1979 → 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm adding in Swope Parkway to this nomination. The same rationale applies as they were split out of the same sandboxed page history. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to U.S. Route 56#Missouri, and I may even do it myself. ----DanTD 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The same goes for Swope Parkway ----DanTD 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill McCormick

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

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and WP:BLP. Very hard to find sources about her except for the wedding and her model 'profile'. This article nominated for deletion in 2005 before there was a policy for sources. It passed on the fact that she was featured on magazines but it's unsourced still. I can't find a source on it except for mirrors. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - For the reasons cited in the 2005 deletion discusion. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's only ONE reason from the previous discussion and I just explained that they are NO sources for it (she appearing in magazines which fails the 'modern day' Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_modelsWikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers). It also has never been proven that she appeared in any of those. Which I blatantly said in the nomination. If you find a source on that, then and only that does the the 2005 deletion discussion applies. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see three sources in the article currently, and we have[23][24][25][26] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying a Rock Star doesn't make the person notable. (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family) I mean seriously? Should every singers partner get an article. Because all their wedding make the news with their partners names. And that's the only sources you found. Nothing about her. I mean you need sources about her notability and that's about her modeling career. That's the only reason she can have notability (and subsequently an article). Marrying a Rock Star doesn't make her notable nor do the sources about them. Find a source about her modeling career and not one that's tied to her marriage to Eddie Vedder. I repeat again. You won't find one. I've tried. You don't even address if she meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_modelsWikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The following links may be useful.

http://jillmccormick.iwarp.com/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/09/eddie-vedder-jill-mccormick-married.html
http://www.celebritybabyscoop.com/category/eddie-vedder
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_gender_and_name_of_Eddie_Vedder's_second_child_with_Jill_McCormick
Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 - the following may be even better.

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/jill_mccormick
http://www.spokeo.com/Jill+Mccormick+1
http://www.pxdrive.com/album/JILL+MCCORMICK_pictures_gsiapic/
http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Jill-McCormick-Model
http://www.in.com/jill-mccormick/profile-1949053.html
http://www.fanpix.net/gallery/jill-mccormick-pictures.htm
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2010/09/jill-mccormick-lily-aldridge-stephanie-seymour-balthazar-getty---couple-news.html
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/jill_mccormick/showphoto/86289/
http://www.pixmule.com/jill-mccormick/3/
Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kamin

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

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner . Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 10:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E - low profile person whose role role isnt "substantial and well-documented" Crystalfile (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Are you kidding? USA Today article on the guy, Reuters article on the guy, The Terrorist List entry on the guy. These are not mentions, but actual items solely about this person. He meets the GNG with ease.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No I am not kidding here. The two article you quoted both are on the "Subject's Gitmo Trial" and the Terrorist List is a comprehensive list which only mentions why he was arrested. All it proves that he was a foot soldier among the thousands of Jehadist warriors and does not prove notability. also fails WP:BLP1E--DBigXray 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding when you say they're both about the "Gitmo Trial"? They're both about the subject in their entirety. Each of the two articles is solely about him.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No I am not kidding both the articles are on the "Subject's Gitmo Trial" bolded and added if it wasnt clear in my earlier comment--DBigXray 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. While, as noted, he does not pass the bar for a stand-alone article, he is suitable for inclusion in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. No significant coverage of the individual, from what I have searched in possible reliable sources appear to be found for the subject to pass WP:GNG. There are multiple mentions of the subject in relation to the subject's detention, and the ongoing interaction of the subject with the judicial process at Guantanamo Naval Base however the coverage has been more about those two events than the subject of the biography article; therefore, it is my opinion that the subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:SOLDIER. That being said the subject is a member of a notable group, and therefore a redirect can be made to said notable group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We know next to nothing about the subject of this article because he lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Therefore he is not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Too little significant and specific coverage by secondary reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given that the creator of this article has created what appears to be dozens or more likely hundreds similar articles on manifestly non-notable individuals that are currently sitting in mainspace and need to be deleted, the "merge" option is unrealistic here. Nobody has the time to sift through this mountain of obscure non-notable material and figure out what and how and where may be merged here. It should simply be deleted, period. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP1E. Being detained, even in Gitmo, is not a notable event. Subject fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gholam Ruhani

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

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBigXray 11:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another Guantanamo article which fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable subject that passes WP:GNG- Was the subject of a fairly deep Washington Post article detailing his capture and detainment. Additional details and writings about him from the AP, and the Miami Herald show continued, significant coverage. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]