Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Re-userified (non-admin closure).

This article was AFD'd in March and the result was userify. A few days ago, the original creator of the page, User:Toomanyairmiles, moved it back to mainspace without the required improvements discussed at the AFD. This was discussed with the editor, and apparently the editor would like to keep working in it in User space. The editor did a direct move of the article out of mainspace. This left a redirect from mainspace into userspace, which was CSD'd. Zad68 13:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make Justice Work

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

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists). Concern noted in PROD (by User:ConcernedVancouverite) was: Result of AFD was to userfy pending more GNG citations after letting it have some time. Those have not been added, yet the article has been moved back into mainspace. It appears those additional citations have not materialized, and as such this fails WP:GNG. Also see comments here: [1] Illia Connell (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need more feedback from User:Toomanyairmiles, see our conversation here. I am getting the impression that the problem with this article is the scope of what Toomanyairmiles wants covered. Toomanyairmiles keeps pulling sources that describe the "Community or Custody Inquiry" work product of MJW, and not the MJW organization itself. I suggested to Toomanyairmiles to consider changing the scope of what is to be written about from MJW to the CCI work product. Zad68 03:42, 21 December 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 Anti-Iranian sentiment. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iranophobia

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

This article (formerly a re-direct) duplicates anti-Iranian sentiment. Anti-Iranian sentiment says: "Anti-Iranian sentiment is feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran and its culture, and towards persons based on their association with Iran and Iranian culture." The new article defines Iranophobia as: "opposition or hostile sentiment to the policies, culture, society, economics or international role of Iran. It also refers to the distrust, dislike of, disdain, envy, intolerance, discrimination, prejudice, racism, stereotyping, fear or aversion to Iranians as an ethnic, linguistic, religious or percieved racial group in around the world. Iranophobia can range from individual hatred to institutionalized violent persecution. Also it is referred to a policies that defines Iran as threat to a certain country or even in big picture to the international peace for certain interests based on series of Conspiracy theories."

In addition, this new article is full of original research and is not neutral -for instance it labels mainstream American films such as 300 as propaganda without using reliable secondary sources. GabrielF (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no case for deletion here — we at least need a redirect to anti-Iranian sentiment at this title. — C M B J 23:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see it restored to a redirect, but the user has reverted that several times now and I'm not sure what the appropriate process is. GabrielF (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article with the most edit history (anti-Iranian sentiment) and merge any unique content into that article. Then, involved editors should determine if the article should be renamed to Iranophobia. - Mr X 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect (or whatever term you want to use) - there is absolutely no reason this can't be at anti-Iranian sentiment or even Islamophobia (in some way). Certainly doesn't need it's own article and reverting the redirect without explanation is trout-worthy (one more and it would be block-worthy under 3RR, by my count). Stalwart111 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Anti-Iranian sentiment. This article deals with the exact same topic, but not very well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article can be expanded, and that should be explored. The Scythian 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the question of how, according to reliable sources, Iranophobia is distinct from anti-Iranian sentiment? Is there a reason that expansion of this topic can't happen at Anti-Iranian sentiment? GabrielF (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite feasible to describe anti-Iranian sentiment and Iranophobia separately, if someone's willing to invest the effort into differentiating the two. — C M B J 05:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This subject is properly covered in anti-Iranian sentiment, and this article has very little to it once the blatantly non-NPOV content is removed. Circumspect (talk) 08:43, 20 December 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to anti-Iranian sentiment and merge any useful content there. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 07:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Autarch (talk) 17:43, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trembulo

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

Prod declined by a user who argued "not a hoax" with sources, but they are: an unreliable-looking site that sells stuff, an apparently user-submitted site, a site that trips the spam filter, and one of those books that consists of republished Wikipedia articles. If this were a real instrument, surely more concrete sources would exist. I can't find a thing on this instrument that is in any way reliable, so I call hoax. Most likely the other "sources" brought up by the deprodder just scooped up info from this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user referred to above. I agree the article looks suspicious and there is little on the internet to support it but I would hold fire on deletion until the subject can be investigated further. If it is a hoax it is a extensive and well orchestrated one or else maybe a demonstration of the way that false information can propagate. I could be worth an article as a hoax if it turns out that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the "sources" out there seem to spring from the Wikipedia article itself. Given that they're all dodgy things like personal websites and books that contain reprints of Wikipedia articles, I really suspect hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked into it with the ghits and similar available as of a week ago or so. The "book" which mentions it looks suspiciously like a "print on demand" where is seems not at all unlikely that someone just googled up "Instruments tuned XYZ" and added "trembulo" to the list of instruments thusly tuned. Further, my vague impression is that there is one single Person X posting on a few string instrument forums discussing an instrument named "trembulo", and what few mentions independent of that exist seem quite plausibly based on said person having brought up the topic in the first place. Fundamentally, I'm not seeing anything at all to clearly indicate that Person X didn't just make up the term and apply it to several pictures of instruments, and a few folks picked up that ball and ran with it for a few yards. I'm not necessarily alleging malfeasance, but it's possible someone in good faith picked a rather arbitrary name to pin on a theoretical instrumental construct, and somehow it ever so slightly took off on the blogosphere. Fundamentally, and speaking as a long-time member of WP:MUSINST and fella who's written multiple properly-referenced articles on instruments played by a few hundred tribesman back in the forest somewhere, I'm seeing zero to indicate that this is anything other than "made up last week" or a full-on hoax. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Quintola I can find, written up by Robert Lewin in 1972. This, I have not found. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have you looked? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the places that I usually do, and all of the places that I looked for the quintola in. I found the quintola in The Strad magazine, to which Lewin was a regular contributor, as you can see. Lewin did a whole article on it, which was in the July (not April) issue and what details I can check out of which (such as the violin maker's name) check out. The only person who seems convinced of the existence of this instrument, however, is Emma dusepo (talk · contribs), who was vague on the details of the Quintola, as you can see, and who shares that name with the person behind the spam-URL-blocked "stringed instrument database". Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for this during the RFC but came up dry other than a website that "discovered" this instrument care of Wikipedia citogenesis. No relevant hits in Google Books. No RS. No deal. (Note that there is a full Commons category to clean up if this is deleted: commons:Category:Trembulo) czar · · 09:57, 24 December 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 Hey_Arnold!. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Johanssen

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

Article is all trivia, original research, and (most importantly) unreferenced. I'm a Hey Arnold fan personally, but I think this would be better on Wikia or somewhere else. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing but fancruft on the character, original research, in-universe info, nothing reputable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge Notable TV show, but un-sourced article...perhaps merge with Hey_Arnold! and expand on the character descriptions in the main article? Also Wikipedia:Fancruft is not policy. Mike (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable fictional character. I'm not seeing how a notable article could be written. This is a fan page and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate character list per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 22 December 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. I'm going to IAR a bit here and close this, as the creator has now set this to a redirect. Ged UK 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint of Braves Baan Gaan

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

I can see no evidence that this program is independently notable - I had set this to redirect to Brave Series (it had been nominated for speedy deletion), but the creator just re-creates it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|

contribs\ 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Brave series and semi-protect the redirect Forgot to put name (talk) 05:13, 21 December 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. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Caubergh

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

Article about a staff member from a football (soccer) team. He is not the manager, he is the fitness coach. Does WP:NSPORT supply this as notable? Sources are at the net as he joined the Iran national team, but all on a news base. Ben Ben (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The article was deleted three times, three times recreated by different authors. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've read the criteria for all of sports, the man isn't notable for any achievements to date, other than merely his presence on the payroll of the team... I love my family Doctor, she coaches University American Football, doesn't mean she meets criteria. T.I.M^(Contact) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:GNG or anything else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT only covers players, managers, and referees, meaning this article doesn't pass that guideline either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 24 December 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. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zacarias Porfirio Paris

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

Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Former minor league baseball player Penale52 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of not meeting the notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awesome name, but I can't for the life of me figure out why somebody created an article on this guy, even if it was only two sentences. Fails WP:GNG with no coverage that I can see. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further review, the user who created this page has not edited any other page on Wikipedia. That's usually a sign that the page was created because of some personal connection the individual has with the subject, including the possibility of autobiography. Just a hunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cool name does not provide notability, nor does anything else I can find for him, and even the name is listed merely as "Zac Paris" at B-R. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an easy one: non-notable minor league baseball player. Never played a Major League Baseball game, therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL. Substantive coverage of subject's minor league career is practically non-existent, and certainly insufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 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. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak under the rationale: "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A10, G12. Source URL: Encyclopedia Brittanica Expanded DVD. Article: House of Hohenstaufen." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Von Hohenstaufen Pedigree

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

This unsourced WP:BLP seems to be mostly a cut & paste from [2] Salimfadhley (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I blanked the material other than the AfD notice and listed it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_December_20. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not only copyvio, but appears to be WP:OR. Also, next time try a G12 speedy if the content is a copyvio and not salvageable (likely deleted via PROD or AFD). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per FreeRangeFrog. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10 and G12. I concur with the previous poster about using G12, particularly on a new article. Safiel (talk) 03:45, 21 December 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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third day in the Bible

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

This was written by Kzarley (talk · contribs) who states in an edit summary that he is the professional golfer Kermit Zarley and, surprise, the author of a book discussed in the article called "The Third Day Bible Code". It's got some promotional language in it about him, etc, but the basic problem is that "Third Day in the Bible" doesn't appear to be a notable topic and the article is basically Zarley's ideas. A Google search turns up a lot of mentions of Third Day which would be expected, but it didn't turn up general discussions of the "third day in the Bible". The existence of Third Day churches and Third Day Christians is irrelevant to this specific subject. There may well be the potential for an article on Third Day Christianity, but this article isn't about that. To sum it up, "third day in the Bible" isn't a notable subject and this is just an article promoting Zarley and his book. If he had written it today it would probably have been eligible for a speedy delete. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure. The topic and the underlying tenet of the hypothesis is a pass-time invention by Kermit and misses WP:NOTE by the width of a golf course. Mainstream scholars do not support this analogy that runs from the OT to the NT across the board at all. Not at all. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SELFCITE = WP:OR, in this case. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTFORUM, OR and SYNTH. In addition to the fact that the page is misnamed, as it seems to be talking about Third day motifs in the Bible rather than Third day in the Bible, the presentation is a mishmash of original research and self-published theories, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOTBLOG. IZAK (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like OR to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SELFCITE (and from there WP:NOTPROMO), WP:NOTE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. I have merged 2 lines into Chronology of Jesus#Day of death, as I considered them worthwhile and non-contentious.[3] The prophetic link between Jonah and Christ's burial is already covered appropriately in other articles. As for the specific thesis of the book, a few lines could be added to Kermit Zarley; but the page should be deleted rather than redirected. – Fayenatic London 00:04, 25 December 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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annual continental migration

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

Does not correspond to any CSD category. Article creator (also the initiator of the plan) declined PROD but noted "this would be the first public article about my plan, that is why there is no citation yet." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear original research with no independent confirmation of notability. AllyD (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and no notability whatsoever for the term, anywhere. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:OR PianoDan (talk) 15:09, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat Ki Kompony

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

Previously a WP:PROD on the rationale "No evidence that this unreleased film meets the WP:NFF notability guidelines." The Prod notice was removed by an IP without comment, also removing with the notability flag. I am bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also worth noting that (a) the article was originally created by a user with the same name as the film and a Userpage Infobox about the film, suggesting WP:COI, and (b) since the original article creation, there have been edits to change the production company, character names, actors and who is providing the film music - all of which confirm the good sense of the first paragraph at WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't have references and also that it doesn't meet the criteria for upcoming movies. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having the coverage to be an exception to WP:NFF. Free Press Journal quotes Arshad Warsi as stating "The ‘Munnabhai’ actor adds that in January he will get busy with shoots for films such as ‘'Dedh Ishqiy'a’, '‘Kismat Ki Kompony'’ and '‘Bhaiyaji Super Hit'’, indicating that filming has not yet begun. Making this topic WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 21 December 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. Courcelles 00:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS

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

On behalf of 71.90.216.96 (talk · contribs) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS. The rationale is that the page was created by a blocked/banned user (User:Latish redone), as well as failing the general notability guideline, in that the topic of most-played rivalries has failed to receive non-routine coverage in reliable sources.

Delete Support my own nomination for the reasons provided. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The applicable notability guideline for lists is WP:LISTN, which states in pertinent part, "Notability of lists . . . is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. . . . Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

In this particular case, the primary subject, college sports rivalries are notable, as demonstrated by the presence of the stand-alone Wikipedia article regarding "college rivalry," as well as a separate category, "Category:College football rivalries in the United States." Further demonstrating the notability of the topic is the fact that each of the college football rivalries included within the list are separately notable, and are linked to stand-alone Wikipedia articles. In the case of this list, the creator chose to limit the list only to those college football rivalry games that have been played 100 or more times; this is consistent with WP:LISTN: "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." In keeping with the guidelines of WP:LISTPURP, this list also serves recognized valid purposes as both an information source and gateway navigational tool which are not being served by any other article or list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created by a blocked/banned user. That itself is a criterion for speedy deletion, which was rejected. You have failed to address that reason for deletion in your rationale for keeping the article. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not specifically address the speedy deletion criteria because I didn't believe it necessary. The G5 criterion states in pertinent part that "[p]ages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others" may be speedily deleted. This fails on two points. First, the article creator was neither banned nor blocked at the time the article was created ("created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block"). Second, significantly more than half of the total content of the article was added by editors other than the article creator ("and which have no substantial edits by others"). In short, G5 does not apply by its own terms. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the G5 criterion is to be interpreted in that way. Latish redone is blocked/banned due to vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account Rhinoselated, right? Then the issue isn't that Latish redone was banned/blocked "at the time the article was created", rather, the creation of the article should be treated as vandalism since the accounts were indef-blocked for being vandalism-only accounts. Also, it is not true that the article has had substantial content added by others. The original version of the article contains the vast majority of the content that is currently in the article now. Other editors have only edited to add their own commentary and to "update" (but not fully) particular entries in the table. So I would say that the article content is contributed primarily by a vandalism-only account. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason why this information should not be merged into List of NCAA college football rivalry games, which is a navigation list for all rivalries?—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a select list based on all-time rivalry meetings; sublists are permitted, but should not completely duplicate existing content. That having been said, if we were to "merge" these lists, it would make more sense to upgrade the parent list to the same content and formatting as the sublist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the number of games played and series record would be nice to have for all rivalries. Filtering by number of games would be fine if this was the only list of rivalries; however, since the other list exists, this subset seems arbitrary to have another article. It's not like there is much more prose to add about this group to justify another list.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe it was created by a banned/blocked user. Don't care. The list looks good and meets our standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the CSD tag mentioned is not applicable anyway and even if it is, WP:IAR can brought into play here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be foolish and disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would make the article be indicative of legitimate contributions rather than vandal contributions. Therefore it should be a higher quality article if done that way. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it meets the notability standard. I've made edits to this page over time and the information is always supported by the cited sources. I would not be opposed to a merge as mentioned above, if someone was willing to do that work, but the information on this page is accurate and useful. --Kgwo1972 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paulmcdonald. There's no reason to delete something just because it's written by someone who's now blocked. I also agree with Paul's other comment that recreating for the sake of not retaining contributions by a blocked user is ludicrous. Go Phightins! 15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is faulty - WP does as a matter of fact delete (by policy) contributions by blocked/banned users. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can ignore the rules as sanctioned in the five pillars. Go Phightins! 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phightins, IAR is not an all-purpose cure-all for every policy or guideline with which you disagree or whose proper execution renders a result that you don't like. Recently, I've seen IAR cited as a justification for ignoring the notability guidelines in AfD discussions; this is not the purpose for which IAR was intended. IAR should be reserved for those occasions when policy or a guideline renders an illogical result or one that is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. When such an occasion arises, the proponent of IAR in a particular set of circumstances bears the burden of demonstrating how Wikipedia would be harmed by the failure to adhere to the policy or guideline. That having been said, IAR is not needed here; the subject of this list is notable, and the G5 speedy deletion criterion does not apply, contrary to the AfD nomination, as explained above.

You and everyone else should feel free to ignore the G5 and "vandalism" arguments advanced by IP user 71.90.216.96. While I assume his support of the "delete" position is taken in good faith, he clearly does not understand the requirements of the G5 speedy deletion criterion or the Wikipedia meaning of "vandalism." The closing administrator will. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that...I was saying that if there was policy that we had to delete everything from vandals, then it would be prudent to ignore that rule to keep what's clearly an article on a notable subject. Go Phightins! 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just delete the vandalistic content and replace it with legitimate content. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling this article "vandalistic"? Go Phightins! 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalistic by WP standards, since it was created by User:Latish redone, the bulk of its content (including many updates) is (or was) contributed by User:Latish redone, and User:Latish redone was blocked for vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account User:Rhinoselated. Therefore it should be deleted. (It could be recreated if the topic of most played rivalries were deemed notable but I also assert that that is not the case.) 71.90.216.96 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sell yourself short; creating this list was one of the few positive contributions you made to Wikipedia, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some regrettable things later doesn't invalidate your prior work...Go Phightins! 03:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinoselated was blocked for being a "vandalism-only account", according to the block log. [4] Latish redone was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated. [5] This indicates that none of Rhinoselated's edits are valid, and that Latish redone's edits are tainted due to being linked to Rhinoselated. So this is not a case in which someone made legitimate edits and then turned into a vandal. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but are you calling this article vandalism (reminder: vandalism is considered any edit made in bad faith to harm the encyclopedia)? I hardly think so. Go Phightins! 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and WP policies support my position by allowing the deletion of contributions from blocked and banned users. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS page is an important page for college football enthusiasts around the country and the only page offered, of its kind, on the Internet that I am aware of. I see it regularly referenced on college football talk message boards all over the websphere and, as a matter of fact, I see it being used as a reference point in a conversation on at least two different college football message boards today. The Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS is also an excellent portal page to Wiki, when linked on the various sites, for users that might find other sites of interest relating to the college football program which they support. In other words, it drives traffic to the entire wikipedia organization. I would ask that the page not be deleted, but rather improved. I was just reminded that the page has been used as a source of reference, just recently, during Rivalries Weekend on ESPN. I also volunteer to adopt the page and bring it current and up to standards. Scrooster (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments already explained above. This is an excellently sourced and formatted list, and while the discussed merge sounds ok, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete altogether. --Zeng8r (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I clearly recall the style of the the banned user who originally created the list in question. This bogus deletion nomination is just the sort of procedural trolling / pot-stirring shenanigans that he enjoyed. Just sayin'... --Zeng8r (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I resent my nomination being referred to as "bogus". What a clear violation of WP:AGF.

IP User 71.90.216.196, "bogus" was a poor choice of words. "Ill-conceived" would be both more accurate and more diplomatic. Your reliance on G5 and your "vandalism" argument for the deletion of this article are based on your clear misunderstanding of both of those Wikipedia policies. Please re-read them and learn. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, I'm almost certain that the IP user you're arguing with is a sock of the same banned user who created this list in the first place, namely User:Latish redone / User:Rhinoselated. He always enjoyed yanking the chains of editors who take his trollish arguments seriously, just like he's doing now. This result of this nomination is clear, so I'd advise everyone to stop playing along. Zeng8r (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this page would not be using G5 for its intended purpose. Ryan Vesey 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the intended purpose of G5? afaik, it is meant to remove the contributions of blocked/banned users so that the encyclopedia is not tainted by invalid edits. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this is not an invalid edit. This is a list that is sourced, notable, and clearly not made to harm the encyclopedia. At this point, I would move for a snow keep closure. Go Phightins! 04:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a snow close is in order here and might help to prevent further drama. To the IP: you have made your point. The consensus is clearly against you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A snow keep closure is inappropriate here since - if you disregard my suggestion - there exists (an) editor(s) who has/have suggested that merging the article is appropriate. Therefore the discussion should be allowed to continue. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of G5 is to allow a series of articles created by a banned user to be deleted. This relieves editors of the burden of going through all of the articles to determine which should be kept and which should be deleted. It is particularly useful if the user was banned for copyvio or creating hoaxes. Once the community has determined that an article, as written, is worthy of being included, it should never be deleted. Ryan Vesey 04:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that just proves my point. How do we know that this article isn't a copyvio or hoax or otherwise illegitimate article? We can delete the article, and if editor(s) believe that there should be an article on most played rivalries then a new one can be created. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't systematically delete articles because they might be copyright violations. I can tell you that all of the rivalries exist, so it's not a hoax. This is growing rather ludicrous...Go Phightins! 04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, I'm telling you... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latish redone Zeng8r (talk)

Well, we can. That's what G5 is for. In this case, the article was brought to AFD where editors determined that it is not a hoax and not a copyvio. G5 stops applying once oversight from another editor has occurred. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me rephrase my comment...I understand that's what G5 is for, I should have said, "In this case we shouldn't" rather than "you can't". Clearly this is not subject to G5, so I see little purpose in continuing this discussion. Go Phightins! 04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are we even discussing G5 for? Latish redone wasn't even blocked when this article was created. Ryan Vesey 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nom rationale implied that since the user has since been blocked, we should somehow remove all of his/her prior contributions. Go Phightins! 04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Latish and Rhinoselated are blocked is because they are "vandalism-only" accounts. So what is the relevance of when they were blocked? A vandalism-only account does nothing but vandalize, right? And this article is one of those vandalistic contributions. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is not a vandalistic contribution. I know no other way of putting this to you. Did you even bother to read the article prior to nominating it? It is clearly not vandalism, it has over a dozen references, it has footnotes, it's readable, and it was made in good faith. By definition, it is not vandalism. Would you please read the policy?!? Go Phightins! 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that it is improper for Rhinoselated and/or Latish redone to have been blocked indefinitely? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while Latish was not blocked, Rhinoselated was indeed blocked when Latish created the article. So this article is indeed a contribution from a blocked user while blocked. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research that appears not to be the case, but the point stands - what is the relevance of when a vandalism-only account was blocked? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The G5 criteria applies to "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." I think you'll find that this article has plenty of edits by others. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep per no delete votes and nomination not based in policy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote counts. Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator. It is a fair assumption that the nomination is a delete vote, but in this case it is the only one. And since !votes aren't counted, but consensus is determined by the argument for the !vote (which in your case is entirely invalid), there are still no delete votes. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliably sourced article with few issues. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Time to close this out, as the nominator has been blocked as a sock of Latish redone per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. I would say that I told y'all so, but that would be rude. :-) --Zeng8r (talk) 14:51, 23 December 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 WP:CSD#G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web designing techniques

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

Wikipedia is not a guide or essay. TBr and ley 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTESSAY. Currently CSD'd by User:Mean as custard as well ({{db-spam}}). —Theo polisme 17:57, 20 December 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 (discounting obvious single-purpose accounts) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kourosh Ziabari

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

References do not establish notability of subject. Just a collection of this individual's largely fringe viewpoints. A 2005 Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari on the subject had consensus to delete. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no convincing reason for the deletion of the article. The notability of the subject is easily distinguishable and the fact that the article includes the subject's viewpoints is not something unprecedented. It's a common practice in the majority of Wikipedia's biographical articles that the viewpoints of the subject, whether a journalist, academician or author are included. --ZahraKazemi (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This another notable contributor to siignifiant pro-palestine anti-Israel press outlets such as PressTV which reflects the official policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Veterans Today which is another "fringe" outlet identified by both ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center as an important and dangerous anti-semitic conspiracy outlet. The article suffers from a bias in favor of the author's viewpoints which are very close to those of the Iranian government which has many critics. Many of these articles appear to be proposed for deletion to make it difficult to research who these people are really speaking for, and Plot Spoiler has also proposed to delete Mark Dankof who also writes for Iran's PressTV. Redhanker (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author is both articulate and resourceful and highly accurate in his reporting. We need more exchange of information and communication with Iran, not less. In this time of stress between nations, his contributions are especially valuable. 24.177.119.16 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)James H. Fetzer — 24.177.119.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Kourosh Ziabari is a first-rate journalist and internationally respected reporter in global news media. Sincerely, Mark Dankof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramf (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Kramf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just to take a tally now. Three of the "keep" votes appear to come from Veterans Today contributors. "ZahraKazemi", who appears to be "Kourosh Ziabari" or someone editing on his behalf. It appears this individual then prodded James H. Fetzer and Mark Dankof to contribute (who until this date have not contributed to Wikipedia). I suggest their votes be discounted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making unsubstantiated claims and bringing no evidence to demonstrate them is not too difficult. ZahraKazemi (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm agree with the nominator that the article would include a kind of fringe viewpoints which can't bring the article notability. I didn't find any independent RS that explains the fact to verify the notability. I also think there are some SP existed in this AfD. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kourosh Ziabari is an award winning journalist who published in numerous internationally recognized media. It may be that the person he interviews are by "some" considered as controversial while "others" consider them heroes for speaking out, they are under any circumstance "experts" in their fields. As a Palestinian and Arab I consider the removal request merely as one more example for to what lengths "some" will go to silence news and opinion which does not concur with the most prevalent and socially accepted "consensus reality" which is disseminated by media in traditional colonialist, neo-colonialist countries and and their allies. It is a sign of their lack of understanding of the very democracy and pluralism they claim to stand for that I have to respond to this removal request. Fahwad al-Khadoumi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahwad Khadoumi (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Fahwad Khadoumi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. There's no doubt that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. The reasons presented for the removal of his page are superficial. Wikipedia should always maintain a certain degree of impartiality and objectivity so as to preserve its credibility. Mohammadttavakoli (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC))— Mohammadttavakoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The one source that might potentially establish notability is the award he received, but that fails to establish enough context to be meaningful, plus the site the supporting article is hosted on has enough indiscriminate tabloid trash to be highly questionable. All of the other sources are either trivial, (staff-directory pages for sites he has contributed to) or opinion pieces he himself has written. This page needs sources about him, not by him.Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an ideology forum. Banning someone from Wikipedia and removing his/her entry for simply maintaining certain viewpoints is not an acceptable behavior. The majority of those who call for the deletion of this entry do so because their political viewpoints are different from that of the subject; otherwise, they don't bring up convincing evidence to support their position. ZahraKazemi (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many articles on people with a wide variety of viewpoints; this discussion is about Kourosh Ziabari's basic notability. Regardless of his views, sources fail to adequately establish that he warrants an article at all. This is not a discussion of whether or not he would be 'banned' from Wikipedia, that is a different issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell; you fail to demonstrate, by bringing up evidence and witnesses, that Kourosh Ziabari is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. On what basis do you propose such an argument? Kourosh Ziabari has been published and interviewed by the world's most renowned progressive media outlets (if you can come to terms with such media) and if what you say is true, then all the journalists who have pages on Wikipedia lack the basic notability which you talk of. ZahraKazemi (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Do you honestly believe that the Iranian regime's Press TV and Veterans Today with its anti-semitic conspiracy theories are "progressive" outlets? Far from it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Plot Spoiler, your concern is not the subject's notability. You have an ideological problem with the subject, and as I mentioned earlier, I think nobody agrees with you that Wikipedia is a place for ideological arguments and value judgments. If you have a problem with the "Iranian regime," I think you should solve it somewhere else, not by nominating for deletion the entry for someone whom you constantly fail to demonstrate is not notable and does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. ZahraKazemi (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other neutral editors and I have demonstrated that the subject clearly fails the notability criteria. If you wish to keep ignoring Wikipedia policy, that's fine. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are a "neutral editor." And by accusing me of ignoring Wikipedia's policy, you cannot put a lid on your anti-Iran bias. So, it's easily conceivable that after this entry, you'll continue nominating the entries of those who support the "Iranian regime" and weave "anti-semitic" conspiracies. I have a suggestion for you. Nominate Gunter Grass's entry for deletion. He has recently composed some anti-semitic poems! By the way; where are your demonstrations? ZahraKazemi (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his association with antisemitic web sites is the issue. Neither is his 'fringe' viewpoint. ZahraKazemi, if you really want to save this article, I challenge you to find reliable, non-primary sources establishing his notability. There are many journals and magazines that discuss journalists and journalism, so if he is as notable as you claim, you should be able to find something. The burden of proof is on you to establish that he is notable, not us to demonstrate that he isn't. Complaining about other editors isn't going to get you anywhere. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are now heading toward a logical, reason-based discussion. Why not? I'll cite references and evidences to establish that he is notable; references and sources which are abundantly accessible on the web and indicate the subject's notability in a clear-cut and unequivocal way. If the problem was really a lack of sufficient and strong references and sources, it could have been discussed in the article's talk page, not in its nomination for deletion page. So, once this arguments come to an end, I'll work on improving the article. ZahraKazemi (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Journalists are only notable if other people write about them, i.e., if secondary sources exist. I see nothing in the article or the links above that establish this. Without these sources it is not possible to write a neutral article. TFD (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivia coverage in reliable independent sources, which we require not only for our notability guideline but also to ensure that the article is compliant with WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been demonstrated, reliable sources are absent, and the whole Viewpoint section is essentially original research derived by the main author of the page from the articles written by the subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Drury

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Hasn't managed a league club and is also an article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he manages a Conference South team with sizeable support. Conference South not being fully pro means managing a club in that league does not confer notability, and support the club gets has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:NFOOTBALL/etc. —Theo polisme 17:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can the size of support of the club he is managing NOT be relevant to notability? Article does not fail WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL as these merely down criteria for 'presumption' of notability. The absence of such presumption doesn't mean he can't be deemed notable, merely that notability cannot be automatically inferred and the case has to be made. The case being that he manages a notable football club. Slicesofjim (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC) — Slicesofjim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The case that you would need to make to overcome the lack of presumption of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL is to show that Drury has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only source cited in the article that is independent and reliable is the BBC one, but that just mentions one incident in Drury's career. Do you know of any other such sources that cover him in more detail? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Working in a notable football club does not inherit notability (WP:INHERITED). Also the football manager fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 16:27, 22 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dum dum pi pi (film)

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

Article about a seemingly non-notable film, with inadequate references. Seems to fails WP:NFF. - Mr X 13:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now, without prejudice for later return, as being TOO SOON. Very recent sources show the project is only now in pre-production and casting.[6][7][8] And upon return and due to unique nature of its title, we will not require inclusion therein of "(film)". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Agreed, I found other links that mentioned the film but they weren't reliable and mostly likely repeated the content from these news articles. However, I found this Middle East article which looks reliable. Fortunately, unlike other Middle Eastern films, there seems to be more definitive information about this film so it probably is going to be released in the next year thus I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 21 December 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no arguments to delete. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayussinte Pusthakam

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

One sentence article about a ~~non-notable~~ play, lacking references. ~~No sources could be found on Google news or Google books, other than a brief mention of the novel on which the play is based. Seems to fail WP:GNG notability guidelines.~~ - Mr X 13:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News in fact finds several reliable sources, as can be seen by clicking on the link automatically provided by the nomination process. Please remember that you need to do an archive search, rather than just the default "last 30 days" search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that Google news only provides the last 30 days of news results. In any case, I do see that there are references to the play, so I retract the nomination. Could an uninvolved editor or admin please snowy close this? Thanks. - Mr X 21:51, 22 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Hammortree

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one official UFC fight he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the fact that he's now fighting in some minor promotion makes it appear that he's unlikely to get those additional top tier fights any time soon. Jakejr (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:13, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bryant (fighter)

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:MMANOT by virtue of having multiple appearances in the UFC (in and out of the house) and also fighting for KOTC. Regardless of tiering, this makes him notable. Also got to the semi-finals of The Ultimate Fighter, where he lost to the format's first ever wildcard winner. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I dont think exhibition fights count as far as notability is concerned. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has only 1 official fight for a top tier organization and now fighting for a lessor promotion. Jakejr (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:15, 27 December 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. A7 would apply here, as well. Courcelles 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz muhammad shahid raza qadri

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

Non-notable person. Non-notable awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I don't know but I think it's probably a hoax, no Google hits either. Mediran (t • c) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Only claim is for winning local reciting awards for childs, unsourced. Other sources are youfacetwit only. --Ben Ben (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 20 December 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.

--69.75.118.134 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Faye West

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, sole reference is IMDB which lists only minor roles in films so far. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found (WP:GNG); roles to date do not satisfy WP:ENT. Gong show 17:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - First of all, I'm concerned by the possible copy violation from the IMDb bio which I find suspicious that both accounts (the user who submitted the bio and this article's creator) are single purpose accounts. Second, she has never received any significant work with nearly everything being minor roles and the TV jobs are no more than one episode. I thought searching with Google News would probably be useless unless she has other work such as plays and theatre productions, I searched but alas found nothing relevant. Considering the close paraphrasing, I would lean towards a G12 deletion as a precaution but I don't know if this article's biography came before the IMDb one. I searched Google News again with her next film, Slink, but found nothing useful and a different search provided this which wouldn't be very helpful. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow. Royal broil 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT YET (actors). Yes, as a working actress she gets roles... but most are minor and she gets no coverage. If or when this changes we can undelete and expand and source this article. But for now, and despite a nod toward WP:HOTTIE, she fails WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but you greatly expanded the page by adding her filmography, but after that effort, you decided it should be deleted. Why? Won't that waste your expansion efforts? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unexpanded article was pretty threadbare and I feel its always both good experience and practice to fix something up. Having more for others to study might have encouraged expanded searches for her under her various names and projects... and just maybe someone else might come along and be luckier than I. Many time an actor pushes at ENT... and had this one had some sort of recognition for her roles, she might have been found just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, agreed, it is a good practice. I have tried expanding too, and more is coming. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments the exact same as Michaels'. Though in my standards she fails WP:HOTTIE. Delete Hahaha. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at many of her roles, it seems she does (or did) things because she has (or had) the looks that made her eye candy enough for various productions. However, eye candy is not an inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:37, 26 December 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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Paige

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, never fought for a top tier organization. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Fights in TUF count as amateur bouts. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are also wrong. They're pro exhibition bouts, not amateur and frankly, I think should be counted. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no proof you are a judge or ref, it's just internet heresay, I could say I'm King and a High Preist. It doesnt make it true. Nevertheless, even if it were true, that still wouldnt make the article pass WP:NMMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. He has no official fights for a top tier organization and is currently fighting for some local promotion. TUF fights are exhibitions, much like spring training games for baseball, and both are designed as tryouts. Neither of them guarantees automatic notability or are considered as appearing in the major leagues. Jakejr (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with 2/0 (notable opponents/notable events) where 3/3 is required. The potential is not here as he figths for a smaller promotion. TUF fight are pro fights, not amateur fights. Since TUF Season N (I'm guessing around 5, maybe before that) UFC required that fighters who wanted to be on the show to be 21 years of age AND at least 3 or more pro fights. Amateurs are no longer allowed on TUF (where there ever? Maybe season 1). Found one, Jason Thacker, no pro figths when entering season 1 Mazter00 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:31, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Sayers

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, never fought for a top tier organization. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No official fights for a top tier MMA organization so he fails WP:NMMA. I hope we don't see more claims that exhibition fights and tryouts count as major league appearances. Jakejr (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA --TreyGeek (talk) 18:35, 27 December 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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sako Chivitchian

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. --LlamaAl (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all below. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: another notable fighter trying to be deleted. Can somebody help me out and tell me why when I do this, my vote isn't be counted as a participant?Willdawg111 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most likely because you saying that he's notable doesn't have any effect. The only way to argue against a lack of notability is to provide evidence (sources) that shows other users that Sako Chivitchian is notable. Please see WP:NMMA and the general notability guideline for advice. Remember to use sources independent of the subject. Bjelleklang - talk 18:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is notable due to his judo accomplishments, which are sourced and valid. To quote from the article, "he has won a total of eleven U.S. national titles including junior titles in 2000[8] and 2001 and two junior Olympic championships. In 2001–2002, he was named the United States Judo Federation's National Youth Male Athlete of the Year. He has placed first and third in the Junior U.S. Open Judo Championships, and competed in the 2003 World Judo Championships in South Korea."

Also was a competitor on a notable TV show which received X million amount of viewers. Definitely notable. WP:MMANOT doesn't apply. Once again, TELL THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE ABOUT ITS DEL NOM! Paralympiakos (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Based on his judo record alone (even though its Junior)- the MMA is just gravey.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Winning a national title in an established sport (Judo is also an Olympic sport) makes this guy notable. Mike (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NMMA. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm biased as I wrote part of the article including referencing the judo material, but I think that this material alone is sufficient to establish notability. I note that no one but the nominator favours deletion, this feels like SNOWy territory to me. EdChem (talk) 03:21, 23 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sevak Magakian

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is another MMA fighter with no appearances for a top tier organization and who fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:40, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Herron-Webb

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He currently has none of the 3 top tier fights required by WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:26, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Diffley

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MMA isn't everything. He has multiple jiujitsu awards which are noted on his article. Passes for notability on the basis of his achievements in THAT sport, if not MMA. Was also on The Ultimate Fighter which pulled in around a million viewers a week. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I agree that MMA isn't everything - none of the titles listed for Jujutsu are that convincing with respect to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He obviously doesn't pass WP:NMMA. As for notability via BJJ, I see lots of underbelt competitions but nothing to show he "competed at the highest level"--which would be major international competitions as a blackbelt. Previous discussions have concluded that even winning underbelt IBJJF titles is not enough to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:MANOTE --TreyGeek (talk) 20:30, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Chaney (fighter)

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has none of the 3 required fights for a top tier organization. Jakejr (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:59, 27 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Clopton

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:MMANOT. He might get the additional needed fights but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL so his inclusion is WP:TOOSOON. Jakejr (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection if article is recreated after it meets WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA --TreyGeek (talk) 21:00, 27 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog

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

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

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

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

Not notable;
Unrecognized by all major dog associations;
Dubious references

There has been a brief discussion here about this article, also Utonagan and Northern Inuit Dog. Utonagan is already at AfD and I'm also tagging Northern Inuit Dog now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now checked through the previous AfDs for this article, which I hadn't been aware of when I initiated this nomination. I feel in the time elapsed, if this was a bonafide 'breed' it would have had sufficient time to have been recognised in some form by at least a basic established registry or to have secured more reliable references. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [9] is the only reference I've found that isn't either in the article, a forum, or a pure page about the Tamaskan Dog. At least 50% of the references in the article are primary, and the others are about individual dogs, not general information about the breed - I fail to see how this confers the notability of the breed, especially as I've seen no evidence of any dog organization recognizing it. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Tamaskan Dogs are registered via an international registry: the Tamaskan Dog Register (TDR). It takes many years (decades) for a new breed to be officially recognized by other 'established' registries (I'm sure you're aware of the AKC FSS requirements). However, once a breed has been officially recognized, then the stud books are closed forever (no new out-crosses are permitted). For any dog breed, genetic variety is paramount (along with full health testing, careful selective breeding over many generations, etc)... if these steps are rushed, the new breeds would fail. It is imperative to wait for official recognition until the moment is right: when it is in the breed's best interest. The Tamaskan breed IS relatively well-known around the world, despite not being officially recognized, and I have included more references to magazine articles, etc. (I have some more magazine articles that I can scan and upload / hotlink if necessary, including Dutch, German and Croatian magazine articles.) Dogs Today July 2009 Issue News Article Furthermore, the Tamaskan IS recognized as an 'unofficial' breed by the British Veterinary Association (BVA), the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), and SCIDERA, INC (all of which list the Tamaskan as a BREED on their official databases).BVA Statistics Sylvaen (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)— Sylvaen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, it's own association recognizes it. That means absolutely nothing. A lot of that argument of yours fails WP:CRYSTAL, and relies on primary sources, individual dogs and forums... no useful sources. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the British Veterinary Association (BVA), the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), Scidera, Dogs Today magazine and countless American newspapers that cite the breed in recent articles are not 'useful' sources to establish the breed's notoriety? Sylvaen (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know we cannot access the Dogs Today article without an account on your forums, which does nothing for suspicions that the article is, for example, simply faked by your organization. Can you provide a link to an outside source? A quick spin around the magazine website itself doesn't bolster my confidence about its reliability, either.

The other problem is that all the sources you cited will recognize pretty much anything presented to it as a breed and if they source back to TDR it kind of defeats the point. --Tikuko 17:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT It also seems to me that you might have extremely close ties with TDR, considering you breed the dogs yourself, which might invalidate your entire argument as trying to protect the crossbreed so you can profit off it (or whatever motives might be behind that). --Tikuko 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am saying that those aren't useful - all those organisations do not have them as an official breed. There are very few sources I've seen anywhere that don't talk about one dog or another specifically; pretty much all sources you've shown are either not reliable enough, and any on a single dog fail WP:INHERIT. I like the look of the dogs, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion here and previous AfDs. --Tikuko 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Watch out for edit blasting and sudden shifts of opinion on this debate. This debate/article was posted on the TDR forums so it's safe to assume that numerous biased edits and calls for keeping the article will be headed this way soon. [10] (You have to be a member to see the thread however - I registed to keep an eye out for this very thing) --Tikuko 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - 22,200 Global monthly searches for the keyword "Tamaskan" on google ^[1] surely gives weight to the argument that there are people out there searching for information on the Tamaskan.

As a trusted information portal, Wikipedia is a key resource, and generally the first port of call for many interested in finding out more on ANY topic.

The largest pet insurance provider in the world ^[2] specifically lists the Tamaskan as a "named breed" that they insure. ^[3]

Wikipedia's own definition of "Dog Breed" states ''Dog breeds are not scientifically defined biological classifications, but rather are groupings defined by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs. A dog breed is represented by a sufficient number of individuals to stably transfer its specific characteristics over generations. Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior, primarily because they come from a select set of ancestors who had the same characteristics.[3] Dogs of a specific breed breed true, producing young closely similar to the parents. An individual dog is identified as a member of a breed through proof of ancestry, using genetic analysis or written records of ancestry." ^[4].

The Tamaskan Breed and the Breed Club (TDR) conform to this definition to the letter. By this definition there is no requirement for a breed to be recognized by any other authority other than its own established breed club, therefore the citation of not having recognition as the basis for deletion is unfounded. Furthermore, there are 6 Established National clubs, which are run as separate concerns outside the function of the TDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.142.150 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — 94.8.142.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let's take this apart piece by piece, mister SPA IP. The number of searches for something on Google has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. What a pet insurance provider does or does not do doesn't affect notability one jot. The Tamaskan breed is yet to be fully "defined" as a set of characteristics, for if it had, it would be recognized fully and officially by at least one notable dog organization. Besides, the Dog Breed page is not a WP guideline by any stretch of the imagination. Any sources that stem directly from the TDR fail WP:V as they are either Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. The number of national clubs for the dog is irrelevant, plus you have no sources whatsoever to back up your claims. The breed fails WP:GNG under my own and other WP editor's researches, as everything either fails WP:V, WP:INHERIT (articles about a single dog, not about the breed itself), and possibly other guidelines as well. The fact your forum(s) form SPA accounts and are acting as SPA IP editors says enough, really. And I'm not against the breed in any way - as mentioned before, I like the look of them, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid ground for an article. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is something that is "worthy of note". There is a claim that this Article has no notability, however there are 22,200 searches on a monthly basis by people searching for information on which the Article pertains. This by definition is therefore Notable in the General use of the term. Google is being used here as reference to the Notability of the subject matter to which the Article pertains, therefore I challenge the view that there is no relevance. The Tamaskan Breed has a defined Breed Standard and as such a set of characteristics that "define" the Breed^[5]. The Breed stud books are still open and "recognition" by external organisations have not been sought yet. This will come in due course. Reference to the WP Dog Breed page was used to demonstrate the WP accepted standard for what the WP community defines as a "Dog Breed". To which the reference still stands and demonstrates the point in question. For Avoidance of Doubt and contrary to your comments, I am not affiliated with the TDR, nor represent them or their forum. I am a SPA by definition, as this is a subject that I feel I can add a voice to. On a personal note, I do not understand why anyone would want to remove the Article unless they had some sort of personal Agenda. The Tamaskan is a new designer dog breed, as are many many other. The information on the Page, is informative and does not interfere with any other subject outside of its core. It is a Niche community at present, and they are trying to grow awareness. An Encyclopedia, is a reference portal for those seeking knowledge and understanding on a subject they are researching. The Tamaskan is a breed of dog with approx 400 registrations held in a central database and managed by an international community. It exists. It is not a made up word, name, or Breed. Several Primary and Tertiary references have already been given as to the validity of the subject matter in the Article. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said it was a made-up breed. The fact is, once again, your argument is clearly failing WP:CRYSTAL. Google search counts mean nothing whatsoever, due to the large amount of bots and things that also search through Google. You pretty much contradict yourself by saying the breed has been defined and yet the books are still open. 400 registrations (once again, a completely unreferenced number there) is hardly a large number, nor does it confer notability. I've already refuted your point about references - they pretty much all fail WP:INHERIT or WP:V. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Tamaskan Breed has a defined Breed Standard". The Tamaskan as a Breed is still in development and out-crosses are still being considered to improve the consistency of offspring meeting the Breed Standard hence why the stud books are still open. It is not my intention, nor i believe the purpose of the Afd process to spend time and energy arguing Semantics with people who have an agenda. The essence of my comments are clear, and apologies if my comments don't meet WP:GPG WP:CRYSTAL WP:INHERIT WP:XYZ. I am not a wiki librarian and these are unknown to me. I am interested in making my POV known and adding constructive discussion to the process. Decontruct and misdirect as much as you want. It is clear your comments are borne from agenda, rather than constructive discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.142.150 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda whatsoever, other than to see Wikipedia improved - besides, did you miss the bit I wrote twice about actually liking the dogs? For an article to be valid, it needs to pass the relevant guidelines, hence why I've cited them regularly in my comments. I would like to point out once again that you say the breed has a defined standard, and yet it is still in development - the fact it is still in development means that it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on the breed. The fact is, the article has been twice deleted in the past, and yet there appears to have been no progress whatsoever with sources and such - the fact that searching for the Tamaskan on Google brings up a whole host of primary websites, with no reliable secondary ones in there, bar a questionable-looking Dogbreedinfo page (Wikipedia and Facebook don't count as reliable sources), says enough about its general notability, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A breed standard (also called bench standard) in animal fancy and animal husbandry is a set of guidelines which is used to ensure that the animals produced by a breeder or breeding facility conform to the specifics of the breed.". Development is the actions by which the standard is attained. The Standard is a Goal. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus confirming there is no standard as of yet, so this article fails either WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is frustrating. I'm not really sure how else to explain it so that you will understand. The Breed Standard exists. The Standard is the guidelines by which the Breed conforms and aspires to. Development is the means by which out-crosses, when/if approved help the Breed maintain and or more closely and consistently meet the set standard. 94.8.142.150 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can own the dog today, it is not WP:CRYSTAL. Why are people saying the notability is inherited? This is a type of dog - so it's going to have traits from related (more notable) dogs...is that the issue? As far as notability, it was already explained that this will not be recognized by the people who keep track of breed standards for many years. I know WP does not accept google hits as evidence of notability - but I do not see why it is not notable, aside from that. Although it's not as notable as something like a dalmatian, it isn't a small litter of cross-bred dogs being given away in the local newspaper. There are societies, magazines, buyers, breeders, etc... all for this dog. Angelatomato (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion For those on the Delete side, maybe there is a way to preserve the content of dogs not yet recognized by "the official" standards (but actively bred, owned, and living in real life today) on here. So, rather than deleting this and the Utonagans (and even the Northern Inuit now has an AFD), would it make more sense to merge them under one heading like "Dogs descended from xyz" or something (i am not really an expert on this topic - but you get the idea)? The guidelines to recommend merging content in similar cases. Sorry if this is a stupid suggestion (since I am not that familiar w dog breeds), but every time I read the article I am surprised people want it totally deleted. It has a lot of interesting information that seems consistent with WP standards +/- a few quality improvements that can be accomplished. Angelatomato (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be moved back into the creator's sandbox, that would be one solution. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If an article is written about the Tamaskan Dog Register, which can pass WP:V based on the the fact it is a bona-fide registered company with the British Government through Companies house ^[6] would the Tamaskan article not therefore pass WP:INHERIT? as it pertains to the business associated with the Tamaskan Dog Register WP:V? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.142.150 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is not inherited, that's the entire point of that guideline. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Angelatomato. While I'm not persuaded by the argument based on the number of Google hits, the rest is sufficient to confer notability on the breed. I don't see this as falling under WP:CRYSTAL. Circumspect (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question isn't it's status level compared to other breeds under the various systemsm it's wp:notability, which is a means to the end of determining advisability of being an enclyclopedia article. I think that it's right on the edge regarding wp:notability-suitable sourcing. It IS an encyclopedic topic, and the type of one where people would try Wikipedia to learn about it. For for me this "on the edge" situation goes to "keep". North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because the standard isn't finalized doesn't disqualify it from being notable. The key is whether the breed/variety is discussed in sufficient secondary sources to make it notable. Bring in the News & Observer article: "…the Tamaskan, a rare Finnish breed that is people-friendly but looks remarkably lupine." It's a single example, written in the context of a single dog, but it shows that journalists are willing to refer to it as a breed. (Full disclosure: I am an alumnus of NC State, the school using said Tamaskan as a live "wolf" mascot. I have no other connection to the breed and no connection to any breeders or registries.) Thus, I think the best course is to keep looking for more references rather than to delete the article.

I also don't think we should delete the article just because it's turned into a battleground for two competing registries. Yes, there's a lot of edit warring inclusion/exclusion of one registry or the other. It's probably best for the reader and for the article to note that there are two registries out there—and that neither of them yet has formal recognition from the major kennel clubs. If the effort spent on that were spent on expanding the article with secondary sources, we'd probably have a strong article and wouldn't need to have this discussion today. —C.Fred (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a Tamaskan club, (THEIR SITE), and thus the burden of proof that the breed exists is met in my eyes. Whether this or that national organization recognizes the breed is neither here nor there — it exists, it is being written about, as others note above, beyond that all I hear is the sound of axes being ground... Carrite (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable because it's a new breed-in-progress. Not being recognized by the major dog organizations doesn't mean it's not of interest to people (myself included). Notable because there are numerous communities and forums and breeders. There are two breeders just in Wisconsin (http://www.moondancetamaskan.com/ and http://www.freewebs.com/tamaskanusa/). I don't understand the "dubious references" claim at all. There's a ton of information out there. I realize there's some restructuring going on with the register, but the discussions that go along with that do not in any way necessitate deleting the entire Tamaskan Dog page. Noxbird (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)— Noxbird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's nothing notable about a breed-in-progress just for that reason. Having numerous communities/forums/breeders is not a grounds for something being notable. The sources everywhere are either primary, or about a single dog that happens to be a Tamaskan - I've struggled to find anything on the breed itself. The influx of SPAs here, including you, does not help. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the article is being held up to impossible standards. My complaint is with those standards, not necessarily with the specific circumstances of the Tamaskan registry conflicts. Also I don't see the relevance of the age of my account. Is that attack not a red herring and/or ad hominem? I stand with my "Keep" vote. I can't argue within the confines of Wikipedia's standards, just as a dumb user that would lose a web page that I find useful. Noxbird (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Tamaskans are mentioned here with a third party reference here. Noxbird (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the minimum criteria for notability, I think. TheBlueCanoe 17:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm Neutral, in light of the comments below. My judgement may have been clouded by the fact that I really want one of these dogs. TheBlueCanoe 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was not sure if it was appropriate for me to comment as I nominated this article for deletion but feel I should expand on my reasons for nominating it. I have ‘no axe to grind’ whatsoever; in fact, I had never made any edits to the article until I added the nomination template. As indicated in the AfD, my attention had been drawn due to the discussion here.

I stated ‘dubious’ references because I do not feel the references meet WP:RS. Within a few hours of the AfD, additional references were added despite the editor having been previously informed they were not considered reliable - see [11]. The references have also been questioned at length on the Talk page.

There are presently 18 references on the article: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are all to one or other of the two (opposing) TDR sites; 3 and 7 are to [12], a WP:SPS; 9 does not even mention a Tamaskan; ten through to eighteen are all for one dog and are predominantly facebook, forums etc so again not WP:RS and this would also come under WP:INHERIT - there is even doubt as to whether the dog is a Tamaskan[13], it seems it is accepted just because the TDR state it’s a Tamaskan.

Then we have a list of publications, without any indication as to why they are being listed. I have searched through the Dogs Today site and been unsuccessful in finding the articles referred to. The Florida Lupine News article is written by the TDR so is not an independent source.

So to summarize (in my opinion): the article fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS - just because WP:ITEXISTS does not make it notable.
SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 27 December 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fate/stay Night the Movie: Unlimited Blade Works

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

Completely unsalavagable page. Speedy deletion declined. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I wouldn't say completely unsalvageable. It definitely needs some TLC, but I'm finding some reviews out there and given how popular the series is over in Japan, there should be some Japanese sources as well. I'll try to re-write the monster synopsis for the plot as well as add the cast listing to make this a little better looking. I think part of the confusion is that someone added the infobox for a completely separate movie to the same article without any true rhyme or reason.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a major rehaul of the article, essentially re-writing most of it and deleting a ton of it. I've removed the entire plot section since it didn't make a whole lot of sense and couldn't really remain as it was. I also found two reviews from DVD Talk and ANN, as well as some news articles about it, one of which is in Chinese. I'm slightly hampered by the language barrier, but I did find enough to show that it should pass WP:NFILM. It's still lighter than I'd like at the moment, but it appears to be notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Good effort! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. Article is substantially altered since the time of the nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 20 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel class assault ship

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional spaceship - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Claritas § 08:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am surprised that this even survived the last AfD, even with tons of Gundam related sources on my shelves, I don't find this notable. Also, it seems like the last AfD consensus tends towards a merge or delete but only kept because who initiated the AfD was blocked. But again, it simply showed that I like Gundam comment in the other AfD a complete lie. Just another WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of mass AfD wiki user. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable references on this fictional ship type. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails per WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator was found to have previous socked to attempt to delete this specific article, as is documented in the above, and as such should be perpetually ineligible for such a re-nomination. Failing that, it should be merged to a list of other non-notable fictional elements if the coverage is insufficient, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that the nominator was banned for being a sock that does not erase the issues this article has, there is no coverage to be found here. As for a merge if a list has non-notable unsourced fictional elements in it, then it should not be on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, purely in-universe and no signs of external notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 23 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bozier

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

This seems to be a textbook WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, it does not meet either of the criteria for WP:PERP, and there haven't even been any convictions because the story broke less than a week ago (WP:NOTNEWS). Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His switching of parties made national headlines and has his more recent scandal. That would make it WP:BLP2E would it not? Francium12 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only. He has been no more than a party apparachnik so far. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bozier is notable as the co-founder of the social network Menshn, as the co-author of a book on the Labour party's policy towards business, for his defection to the Conservatives - which was discussed in the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Questions^[7] - and for his recent run-in with the law. The article has also been considerably expanded with additional material (by me).Zippy2112 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Everything that needs to be said about this individual could be included in the Menshn section of the Louise Mensch article. He was never a prominent member of either the Labour or Tory Party, happens to run a website like probably thousands of other non-notable people and the allegations don't make him notable either. I would support a merge of this into Menshn if the consensus is not to delete. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:56, 18 December 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, Courcelles 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the contents of the article are sourced and meet General notability guidelines. While the WP:BLP1E analysis may be correct, on the other hand where are people suggesting that this should be merged to? I don't see how LB's legal problems have any place in the Louise Mensch article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:06, 21 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GSSS institute of Management Science

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

Self marketing, with the institute. does not meet Wiki notablity criteria and also WIKI GNG Shrikanthv (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly under CSD A7. At the very least, the article needs a simple rename to GSSS Institute of Management Science (to fix the capitalization error). Lukeno94 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 10 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be an accredited, degree-awarding college. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep accredited degree awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian educational instituions because, unlike their US equivalents for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this article cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 19:57, 15 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 05:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't look like marketing to me. It's an actual institution in India. I will not repeat all that is said, but I agree with TerriersFan. Nerds like me like to say Google is your best friend, but it isn't always. I'd like to add that this is an international encyclopedia.--Joey (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable college. TBr and ley 17:24, 20 December 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) Mediran (t • c) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Minhall

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

Non-notable radio presenter. Elongated shorty (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only trivial coverage in news and books. Fails WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 23:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anne-Marie Minhall is a major presenter on Britain's only national classical music network Classic FM (UK).Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep -- Classic FM is a significnat national radio station in UK. Presenters on such stations seem notable to me, partly becasue they are in the public's face. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing my qualification "weak". We are get editorial review on gthe performance of a presenter. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Needs editorial coverage to be notable--Nixie9 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 05:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She is a major presenter for the only classical music station. There are many radio presenters with articles, this shouldn't be an exception. She has the public's attention and is heard throughout the country.--Joey (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's with Britain's only classical music station. She's heard throughout Britain. She shouldn't be dismissed just because you never heard of her. She's notable.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Edit from an open proxy server[reply]
Keep She is a name that gets mentioned in the British media, and so has at least much as notability as many other media celebrities who have entries in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Glad to hear that she's so popular there, which suggests there should be ample references. I ask that you add links to editorial discussions about her specifically, because other reviewers are likely to state that the notability of the station or genre is not inherited by the announcer. I could only find the profiles created by the station or passing mentions in google.--Nixie9 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aya (kitchens)

AfDs for this article:

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

Too promotional to fix, and not notable enough to be worth fixing. Those of the refsI can find are either mere mentions of the firm, or disguised press releases . The awards are local and minor . I take note of the articles's rather frank use of the phrases "one of the companies mentioned", "one of the first" & "one of the fastest growing," The company has been added to every possible see also list in the general area of sustainable design, a sure sign of promotionalism -- I noticed this article while trying to clean up some of these lists. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yellow Pages thata-way→! And if DGG says delete its gotta be bad! . We neeed a decent notability guideline for companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nomination, and the best reference I can find is a hate-site [14], which isn't really much for keeping an article. The article is incorrectly named, at the very least it should be AyA (kitchens), but AyA Kitchens and Baths would fit better. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just looked at the previous AfD: AyA Kitchens and Baths was speedily deleted around this time in 2008 for exactly the same sort of reasons it's at AfD here. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 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. KTC (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobi Fehr

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

Fails WP:GNG and hasn't played in a fully pro league. Contested PROD without any reason at all. – Michael (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Michael (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Govvy (talk) 00:07, 28 December 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 Rodale, Inc.. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Health (magazine)

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

Article about a magazine that doesn't seem to exist. Unfortunately, I spent a minute or two tidying up this page which came as a Random article. The article gave a website for the Chidlren's Health magazine which is actually the website of Men's Health, published by the company that supposedly publishes this, Rodale. That company's website has no mention of Children's Health. A reference on the page was to a report on www.earthtimes.org that was not there - searching through the site did not reveal it. A Google search brought up some references to the magazine (but not the magazine itself): most useful is this press release which suggests it was a one issue special produced jointly by Men's Health and Women's Health in 2009. As such, the article is misleading but, more importantly, this appears to be a non-notable minor publication. Emeraude (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and perhaps redirect): Confirmed by the same article by Reuters - Children's Health was a one-time issue. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rodale, Inc., no need for deletion at this time, redirects are cheap, someday could be useful info. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:57, 15 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rodale, Inc. I agree, deleting is too premature.--Joey (talk) 07:50, 20 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zibby Allen

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

No sources provided in the article. I was unable to find anything beyond IMDB and a scattering of profiles. Does not appear to be a notable actor. Daniel (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACTORBIO--Nixie9 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in the least and the roles she is best known for are a commercial and a nurse every year or so in Grey's Anatomy. Google News found results that are mostly relevant to Grey's Anatomy here (brief mention and noting she had a fling with McDreamy, a character) and Google Books found this (Who Was Who on TV listing). She was also cast in the 2005 and 2006 play 7 Redneck Cheerleaders with references here and here and this mentions she participated in a theatre event, 24 Hour Hollywood Rush but this isn't much to sustain the article. I also found this (first result from the top) self-published book that lists her as one of the world's best celebrities which I honestly find ridiculous because she hasn't had much work to even be considered notable and it seems this book is really only a list. I also found this blog which mentions her brother died of an undisclosed addiction (I'm assuming drugs though) and she co-founded a company, NightKAP Entertainment but I haven't found any evidence to suggest this company is notable. She is pretty and it's a shame she hasn't received better work but she is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 20 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pui Chan

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

On notability and veracity grounds. The article has had issues for quite a while and makes some far reaching claims without any references except to themselves. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article claims "Chan has been featured in many magazines and film documentaries over the years featuring his skill and business prowess in the martial arts industry." If so then it does match notability guidelines. If not then it might be a candidate for PROD or even speedy delete. Can the proposer comment on the above claims? What attempts has the proposer made to find sources? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PROD yes, speedy no. Remember that an A7 requires that the article does not make an assertion to importance, which is distinct and less strict than notability. Since this article does make an assertion of importance (true or false), it's not eligible for A7. Joe is a doctor is A7 material, Joe is a doctor who won the 2012 Foobar Award is not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick web search turns up a lot of material about this person. For example, he certainly was on the discovery channel documentary which the article claims (see my comment below). JoshuSasori (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a re-write with references is in order.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some adds in Blackbelt magazine - also a few references that were probably to someone else. Nothing that can back up the claim to be 33rd successor of anything.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment again, but there seems to be a fair amount of material out there about this person which is accessible via internet searches. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. the reference about him being on the Discovery Channel documentary checks out: [15]. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further "veracity" is not a ground for deletion, unless the whole article is a hoax. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very poor quality, but the subject seems to easily meet the criteria for notability. Deletion proposal seems to be more to do with WP:RUBBISH WP:IDONTLIKEIT than non-notability. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the criteria for notability. Nothing a little editing can't fix.--Joey (talk) 07:54, 20 December 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 Regular Show (season 1). I'm also going to delete before redirecting in this case, what there now rings every alarm bell for a G12 that I have. Courcelles 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Cheese Deluxe

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

A contested prod. Non-notable episode of a TV show. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Regular Show (season 1). Valid search term. Also, would it not make sense to nominate Free Cake along with this one? That's the other one I found in NPP. §FreeRangeFrog 05:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to Regular Show (season 1) serves the project far better than does outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:01, 12 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 13 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Regular Show (season 1). It's simply a summary of the episode. The same reason why some American Dad episodes do not have their own article anymore. Nothing you can't simply put on the article for season 1 of the show.--Joey (talk) 07:57, 20 December 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. Courcelles 01:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Richert

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

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Cybervoron (talk) 18:10, 6 December 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 December 6. Snotbot t • c » 18:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was just screening these articles for potential candidates for deletion. The Italian Formula Renault Championship is a professional series and thus this article passes. -Drdisque (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 13 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to repeat what has been said, so I'll simply say I agree with Gene93k. This passes for notability.--Joey (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:ATHLETE as by assertions by Drdisque. I'll go through and wikify it a bit better later. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:30, 20 December 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. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshaw (app)

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

PROD removed by anonymous SPA. Non-notable application. Fails WP:GNG with no independent and significant coverage from reliable sources (see Google News search and Google News Archive search). The article reads like a puff piece for the app and the people who designed it while not really giving any indication of important or notability. The article doesn't qualify for A7, in my opinion, as it's a product (although it also seems to be a company). The article may qualify for WP:G11 but this seemed more appropriate given the failure of the PROD. Lastly, the article was created by the user Jonathanfein, an SPA that is most likely the Jonathan Fein that co-created the company/product. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New app released this month; no significant press coverage, not surprisingly (but creating a Wikipedia article is not the place to start building attention for a new product). At best WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, nonnotable software article created by SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable enough for a proper article. Rcsprinter (converse) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 07:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI)

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

Appears to be largely original research of a neologism. Furthermore, if notable, belongs in a dictionary. Mkdw ^talk 04:28, 20 December 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. A7ed by User:Anthony Bradbury. procedurally closed Courcelles 01:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaci Johnson

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I tagged it for deletion, I would have speedied this as an A7, there is no claim of notability in the article. Secret ^account 18:18, 25 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plunderphonics

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would indicate this is a notable term/concept. Normally I'd have prodded this, but it's been hanging around since 2003 so it warrants discussion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added various references to the article, including one to a book carrying the term in its title. I do think the article needs significant work, however, as its later sections cast the net rather wide: references are needed to place the examples within scope of the article title. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. The article needs work but the term is in wide use, is notable and passes WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It passes the notability guidelines and the sources are aplenty, but my, oh my, it needs work. Parts of it are just unsourced promotion. I'll try to aid with the editing and sourcing. Ezhuks (talk) 20:33, 21 December 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. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaora Mbelu

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too found nothing on Google anywhere for this person, but the one link on the page garnered me a warning from Google Chrome that the webpage wanted to use my computer. Not what I would call encyclopedic content. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:01, 22 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossings Christian School

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

Non Notable school with zero references, Google search turns up nothing that you could used as a reference. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A small but bona fide high school: it's a member of the OSSAA (which says it had an ADM of 69 students for 2012-13([16], competes in interschool sports (Class B)[17], and GNews shows coverage including, for example, a 2008 article in The Oklahoman about the groundbreaking for the upper school[18], and other stories such as [19] and [20] as well as typical sports coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that high schools are presumed notable upon demonstration of their verifiable existence. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per Carrite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) & WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Consensus has been that secondary schools are typically justified to have a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally regarded as non-notable if they can be verified through reliable sources. In addition, I concur with Arxiloxos (talk · contribs). TBr and ley 21:10, 24 December 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 under WP:SK 2b. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon son of Boethus

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

Delete. Created by forever blocked vandal, this article does not belong here Rrodic (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article's creator was blocked, not banned (meaning his edits are not automatically anathema), and the article does not qualify as WP:VANDALISM at all (seriously, actually read WP:VANDALISM). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 20 December 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 December 20. Snotbot t • c » 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether or not he is defacto-banned, being created by a banned editor is only grounds for deletion if the creation occurred while banned/blocked, in violation of the ban/block. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets inclusion guidelines. –BuickCentury Driver 02:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The OP has been blocked as a troll, I'm pretty sure WP:SNOW applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 20 December 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 under WP:SK 2b. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Mary Magdalene

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

Delete. Created by forever blocked vandal, this article does not belong here Rrodic (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's creator was blocked, not banned (meaning his edits are not automatically anathema), and the article does not qualify as WP:VANDALISM at all (seriously, actually read WP:VANDALISM). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 20 December 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 December 20. Snotbot t • c » 01:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of whether or not he is defacto-banned, being created by a banned editor is only grounds for deletion if the creation occurred while banned/blocked, in violation of the ban/block. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until there is an affirmative reason for deletion. — AjaxSmack 02:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OP has been blocked as a troll, I'm pretty sure WP:SNOW applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mary_Magdalene#Legend_of_Mary_Magdalene. There doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a stand alone article. Blue Riband► 02:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a couple of sources in the article specifically about the subject. It could stand expansion, but most articles could. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 20 December 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 Delldot as A7. Shadowjams (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Ziyad

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

The subject has not played in a fully professional league. No news of a transfer to any team. Pure fiction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should actually state that a player by that name does appear to be on the roster of Al-Zawra'a SC, but there's no indication that this transfer to Man U is real and there's also no content. So my original reason has to be modified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - All it looks like to me is an article with no citations, and one sentence comprising of 11 words. Talk about a stub! The article asserts no importance of the person it's about. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The infobox image has been provide by a "Tariq Ziyad Alobidy" who is user:Black houk. Not sure what to make of this at all now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is when "Tariq Ziyad" started to "play" for this team. This is becoming more and more of a hoax. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 20 December 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.

^ https://adwords.google.com
^ hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petplan_USA
^ http://www.petplan.co.uk
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed
^ http://tamaskan-dog.org.uk/breed-info
^ http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo
^ http://labourlist.org/2012/01/pmqs-verdict-the-day-satire-died/

[1] ttps://adwords.google.com

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petplan_USA

[3] ttp://www.petplan.co.uk

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed

[5] ttp://tamaskan-dog.org.uk/breed-info

[6] ttp://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo

[7] ttp://labourlist.org/2012/01/pmqs-verdict-the-day-satire-died/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]