Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga (term)

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

PROD removed for no reason. This term is not notable and is better suited to Wiktionary. Beerest355 Talk 23:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If kept I think this should be at Gaga (word). Seems to be the more commons disambiguator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am generally wary of NOTDIC as a deletion argument, as it tends to be thrown at any article about a word, regardless of notability or encyclopedic content. In this case, though, the entry is essentially a dictionary entry disguised as prose. It offers definitions of four different homonyms: an English slang term meaning "infatuated" or "slightly crazy", Yuri Gagarin's nickname, Lady Gaga's stage name (via Queen's Radio Ga Ga), and a game called Ultimate Gaga. Per WP:NOTDIC, different things named by the same word should have different encyclopedia entries. I'm not convinced the slang term (which should be the only thing considered here) is notable as a term. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Cnilep. It's a term that is used but I see no real encyclopaedic value in detailing the tenuously-linked pop culture references. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To delete this would be gaga! This ain't an ordinary term... It's gaga!!! But on a serious note, this isn't just a dictionary entry... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not that it's a dictionary entry, it's that it's a non-notable word. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Beerest355 Talk 16:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? Gaga has to be one of the most enigmatic and bizarre words ever. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per violetriga. It's a dicdef by way of WP:SYN. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2013 (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. Zad68 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Cheese

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

After editing the article, I'm not really finding corroborating material for WP:Notability (music) online. The Billboard Magazine write-up, per the article, was about Big City Records and the Nick D Album; no indication that Cheese was mentioned. Can anyone verify the coverage in Black Beat and Teen Machine? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writing is non-notable per WP:AUTHOR, one book with no book reviews. The article asserts WP:GNG notability with these two sources: 1. cover of Teen Machine Magazine in 1988. Unable to verify. Here's what a different cover of Teen Machine Magazine looks like from 1988, so the cover image may have been one of many people on the cover (or not, hard to know). 2. three-page layout in Black Beat Magazine in 1988 (see image). Are these two sources alone enough to meet WP:GNG? Since his career was from the 1980s, I also searched about a dozen general and specialized music databases with archives of thousands of periodicals and his name does not appear anywhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing the level of sourcing required to establish notability. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Cole

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

This was previously deleted on notability grounds after an AfD debate. The repost speedy delete was declined because of substantive changes but the lack of notability remains. Only fought once for a top tier organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has had one fight (a quick TKO loss at a minor event) since the article was previously deleted. He still fails to meet any notability criteria (specifically GNG or NMMA). Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and nothing to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (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 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. WP:NOTBURO, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Middle School (Santa Monica, California)

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

Non-notable middle school. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Schools encompassing grades 6-8 aren't generally considered notable. JNW (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, per common practice in similar situations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District per common practice for non-notable schools. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (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 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. WP:NOTBURO; WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Elementary School (Santa Monica, California)

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

Non-notable elementary school. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, which is the common outcome in similar situations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District per common practice for non-notable schools. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2013 (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. Zad68 02:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Projects

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)

Article is written like an advertisement, but more importantly, notability is not established. Most references lead to discussion forum posts. No significant external coverage from reliable sources as far as I can tell. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

author response(please consider these facts) (sorry if this is in the wrong place)

Seeking clarification to which parts you think are written "as an advertisement"? Article contains only referenced facts of events and gigs (which their career was built around). it doesn't contain external links to song downloads and does not advertise any future work as the band has retired from performing.

The "discussion forum posts" referenced are established as reputable on the wiki page australian_hip_hop. The exact paragraph link is here: Ozhiphop.com Awards. One must consider the timeline of the late 90's, even reputable websites began as forum or IRC based clients. The website is now "the Annual Australian Hiphop Awards" and has been running for close to two decades.

3 of the sources are from Australian Government Websites that host a film that details the story and involvement of 2 of the band members.

source in Brimbank Leader newspaper(references online version of hard-copy newspaper) establishes 1 band members notability as an artist and features full photo.

further: justification using wikis standards for bands and ensembles.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. all sources are 100% independent of the artists

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:

Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.all sources are 100% independent of the artists

Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. all gig references also have attendee feedback, are independent of the Artist and the reference: "Double or Nothing III." In The Mix Magazine. In The Mix. 13 Sep. 2006. Web 30 Sep. 2013. <http://m.inthemix.com.au/events/reviews/28452/Double_or_Nothing_III_Colonel_Light_Hotel_Adelaide_090906> is an online magazine review of a performance while on inter-state tour.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. Brimbank Leader is a legitimate hard-copy newspaper that re-enforces one members notability.

9.Has won or placed in a major music competition once reputability of ozhiphop.com is established (as above) the legitimacy of the bands runner-up "best live act in Australia 2005" meets this criteria.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) 2 of the band members have a documentary-style video hosted on an Australian Government websites "Culture Victoria" outlining their music.

reference: "The Art of Rhyme." Culture Victoria. Arts Victoria and M Mifsud. 4 Apr. 2010. Web 30 Sep. 2013. <http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/digital-stories-of-young-adults/2180/the-art-of-rhyme>

The above reference in addition the the Brimbank Leader newspaper article also helps attribute to: 6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm jumping way to the bottom to answer your questions. I've reformatted your sub-section for clarity, so that there aren't three main areas to edit in. That can get messy. I hope that doesn't offend. I will, however, preface this response by saying two things: 1) I'm not saying that they're not competent or awesome. I've no agenda, as I've never heard of them. 2) I will not be countering each and every point you've made, because that will take us down multiple branching avenues that will distract us from the bigger issues.

"Advertisement" covers a lot of ground, including promotional language and peacock terms. I was specifically referring to phrases such as the following, which are written in non-encyclopedic tone, in such a fashion that it comes off as a promo puff piece. "You'd be excused for thinking some of their accents stray, ever so slightly, from the regular Australian drawl, this contributes to the rawness that is the sound of their authentic street anthems." "They have often been referred to as a significant influence..." "...their trademark tongue in cheek humour". Articles must be written in a neutral point of view and without original research. Any discussion about their "rawness" and "authentic(ity)" needs to come from external reliable sources. Was a Rolling Stone correspondent so amazed by a live Iron Projects performance that he memorialized it in print? "...their disparate accents convey rawness and authenticity!"

But as I said, a major issue with the article is that notability of the subject is not clearly established. Firstly, we should know in the article lead what the group is known for. Look at the article on Britney Spears, or perhaps more realistically, look at the article on Takeru Kobayashi. (Picked randomly as someone I happened to think of after thinking of Britney Spears.) Two sentences in his lead, but you know right off the bat that he holds four Guinness records. That's what makes him notable. In contrast, there is no proper article lead at Iron Projects. And apart from learning that they are suburban rappers, there are unreferenced (and subjective) claims that Iron Projects are influential, and we don't learn until somewhere in the middle of the third paragraph that they were runners-up for a "revered" award. (More puffery). This, runner-up-ship, however, may be a valid argument for inclusion, though it seems more intuitive that they be mentioned in a list of runners-up in an article about the OZ awards, than have their own article. Did they produce albums? No. Did they get air play? I dunno. Any videos? Beats me.

SOURCES: Ozhiphop.com may be the biggest hiphop site in Australia, (which is something I'm assuming, because the link you provided has no sources to corroborate that claim), but that doesn't mean the discussion forum is a reliable source. A reliable source has (for example) some sort of editorial oversight that governs content, i.e., they fact check, they vet sources, etc. That is as true of newspapers from 1880 as for reliable sources from the 1990s. You can't argue that because it was the 1990s, journalistic standards on the internet was unheard of. As I said, I can't go through every single point with you. If you want the article to survive, you're going to have to work hard to establish notability. All the excessive BOLD text and stuff we can take care of. Prove that this crew is notable and that we're not just using Wikipedia as an extension of MySpace and I'll be happy to work with you. But keep in mind that it's not about you and me, it's about what the community decides as a whole. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence that notability is established here. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

author response

Firstly, thank you for any adjustments made,i'm more than happy to have parts removed or reformatted if you are willing to become involved. Please review the article as I have attempted to address many of the articles shortcomings, I have undertaken the changes i outlined following:

i will adjust the "lead" and remove any unsubstantiated descriptions. as a fan and attendee of their shows i believe their live show is what makes them notable, but do qualify on at least 1 of the possible grounds and had attempted to make the article able to qualify for as many grounds for notability as possible. Also i think i got carried away with the "biography"

I do believe it is worth re-evaluating the "discussion forum" as you label it and consider the following short points:

is it possible that some of the references [[and relevant claims] of posts by non-admin members be removed?
the site was good enough to be included on the Australian_hip_hop wiki, i didn't put it there, but even unreferenced it must have been considered to be factual enough after a debate like we are engaging in right now.
as the competition the band won was posted on a locked forum by the admin at the time, the very same annual awards are now hosted on the home page of what has grown to become a very professional website and an authority on the subject.

i have compiled a lost of existing wiki pages that references the www.ozhiphop.com website and/or their annual awards: (to help verify credibility of all other sources in addition to ozhiphop.com)

Distant_Sense_of_Random_Menace

Mind_over_Matter_(band)

The_Calling_(Hilltop_Hoods_album)

DJ_Bonez

Matty_B

Brothers_Stoney

<http://www.triplejunearthed.com/Requiem> is a mainstream fm radio station and quotes ozhiphop here with inherent credibility.

<http://www.bmamag.com/articles/news/20121023-happy-double-digit-birthday-ozhiphopcom/> confirms ww.ozhiphop.com is 21 years old.

<http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/musicnews/s3723224.htm> national news article about The_Tongue feferences an interview with www.ozhiphop.com

Also at <http://www.inthemix.com.au/news/20675> the winner of a foxtel pay tv channel "Channel V" competition had his winning single advertised as for digital download at the official Channel V website and on ozhiphop.com, has to give it some credibility?

Here is the professional business profile of a passed ozhiphop.com awards manager <http://au.linkedin.com/pub/katherine-murphy/42/863/b87>

inthemix.com.au is a reference i have used a few times, other wiki pages that reference it are:

one of sites a reference a couple time "aahh.com" is also referenced in wiki articles

Seth_Sentry

Illy_(rapper)

Brad_Strut

The_Chase_(Illy_album)

9.Has won or placed in a major music competition

this grounds to establish notability is different from point 8 which is a major music award ie ARIA by something like a corporate governance.

This was a major, and is even bigger now, competition all artists of notability are entered into <www.ozhiphop.com> feel free to browse and research the artists who win them currently, the annual awards are the one and only competition for this genre of music which is a small and growing music industry. The band which they 'placed' among were gold and platinum album artists at the time.

most importantly 2 of the artists made an autobiographical video [about music] for a department of the Australian Government [which is referenced] how can that be dismissed as not "real evidence"? the video has also been adapted as a teaching resource by ACMI which is basically a huge museum.

the reference to the magazine <www.inthemix.com.au> is an interview by artist "hykoo" who is signed to a record label and has released multiple albums and specifically says the band was an influence for him and his music.

thank you again for even reading all this, but if you're interested in helping cutting this down to what it needs to be to be less ambiguous, please do, it'd be a shame for this article to be removed just because many (but not all) references are from a legitimate authority on the subject that used a discussion forum layout in entirety in the earlier days of the internet.

youtube videos of band and/or members

please note: the band are notable for their live shows and werent active on youtube

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiR9nCgnQls> (7 year old video of band on stage)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFoJCSi4iDk> (upokalypz first freestyle battle)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjjk2gPPbLI> (upokalypz freestyle battle)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4SiP5QTF-0> (HEADLINE PROMO 2vs2 freestyle battle with Upokalypz)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0ZCSPqeihg> (Hoodlum freestyle battle)

(Upokalypz has a few more freestyle battle videos on youtube than i have listed)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65NkcwkkLg> (Pabstrakt and Upokalyps feature on an Emerald Sun PROMO)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzeXKwN9-X0> (Music Video For Eduaz ft Upokalypz - se tu (25,000) views (warning: in Chilean)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Cif6rvpMQ> (An example of what one reviewer called "set the lighthearted mood with a bit of a dancing routine, which was fairly entertaining." you should recognise Upokalypz by now with the bald head)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50k5ssXzaGo> (360 - So Fake, produced by pabstrakt and referenced in article 256,000 views)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX5AsbEkdRk> (360 - so Fake uploaded again this one with 136,000 views)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeJDHN12aO8> (360 ft Oso - Take me for granted 51,000 views)

<http://www.thehothits.com/video/phrase/here-now/12908> (Upokalypz and Jhay V close ups at (2:32) and (2:44)

<http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/116/a295d3161d7f48c6b514e6e7f4789fc3/l.jpg> (Upoklayps and Pabstrakt with Phrase from above video clip and Illy at the recording studio)

<http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/117/d8b095ec458c417aafaae78a40c24a7b/l.jpg> (Oso, Upokalpyz, Hoodlum and Pabstrakt + other with Daniel Merriweather (back 3rd from left))

Please consider all available information i have presented before dismissing this article, thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spam your YouTube videos here - Wikipedia is not a free video hosting service, and YouTube is more often than not both an unreliable source and a copyright violation to the extent that trying to use it to prove notability is extremely difficult. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading WP:BAND, this group does not seem to posses the required notability for inclusion. Extensive social media coverage does not meet the broad coverage requirement, nor do they seem to be any different from many other unsigned locally popular groups. EricSerge (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eric i dont think you understand the definition of "social media" there are 18 references used from non-discussion-board posts. That's legitimate news, government department and independent culture and music magazine business websites, just because its a website and not a book does not make it social media or unreliable by default. i outlined above numerous "famous" groups referencing these same very online businesses you have labelled "social media"

if you read the article in its entirety they ARE different from other unsigned acts by coming 2nd for BEST LIVE ACT in the country and touring inter-state and being an influence on now-popular artists, despite never recording songs.

One Ozhiphop.com reviewer stated "Another moody Pabstrakt beat compliments the topic perfectly" [6] does that not say he has a reputation?

i dont intend to argue every single point but i feel that people are dismissing things without properly understanding them and that is an injustice.

please look at ACMI this is the museum that uses the story by 2 of the band members as a teaching resource, I dont see any other locally popular groups members being chosen to have a lesson planned about a video made by and about them and hosted by a government museum.

if you dont have time to consider everything properly and dont want to help, let someone with a valid opinion on the topic evaluate it, so far all votes to delete are based on misunderstanding of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketcher man (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sketcher man: Main man, I've gone through tremendous pains to sift through the references on the Iron Projects article and explain on your talk page, in a casual, friendly, and SUPER-DETAILED manner, why those references FAIL to establish Iron Projects' notability. This isn't a witchhunt, it's not a crusade against you or the content you are attempting so strongly to fight for, this doesn't mean that we as individuals aren't capable of understanding Iron Projects as a group, rather that you have not met the general notability guideline, or that you are not using reliable sources or that you are inserting original research. There is not ONE SINGLE SOURCE in that article that says definitively, "Iron Projects" is notable. You seem to want to throw a handful of clouds at the wall so you can tell us what looks like an elephant. "These reference says they performed here, here and here. This guy says that he performed with Iron Projects a dozen times. This reference says that they didn't exactly WIN a rap battle but maybe they placed second or third or were runners up, depending on how we personally interpret the results. Here are a dozen YouTube videos that you need to sift through to figure out how Iron Projects are notable. Here's a YouTube video where the guys have close-ups? (OMG really?) This is a guy who used to be in Iron Projects. Since he now has a record contract, Iron Projects must be notable." No. Find one news article that talks about how dope these guys are.

And this is the only time I'm going to explain this point to you, since you seem to be hung up here: If I am a car mechanic, and I make a free video for my state government office about the importance of cars or carburetors, that endeavor doesn't mean that all of a sudden I have earned legitimacy as a notable car mechanic, or that suddenly I'm a notable automobile engineer. My notability as a mechanic or engineer needs to be independently reported by reliable sources. Someone unrelated, has to say, "Cyphoidbomb's re-defining of head gaskets was pivotal, as his new polymer design improved motor reliability 300% and reduced national fuel expenditures and repairs by 26%." Holy shit, all of a sudden, I am significant! But if an article about me says, "Cyphoidbomb fixed some cars. He installed a new exhaust manifold on one of Jay Leno's cars. He inspired Sigourney Weaver to change her oil every 3000 miles, and he's got an open slot for a smog check this Friday at 10:30am," dear god, how the hell am I notable? I'm not!

Your numerous replies to my points on your talk page demonstrate that you are reluctant to understand what I am trying to impart to you. If you want to memorialize this group in your preferred manner, I'd recommend that you open up the edit window tomorrow, copy the entire article, then go to Wikia.com and paste your Iron Projects article there. There it will avoid any kind of scrutiny. I hate to dismiss you like this because I can tell you're a good dude, but you are being so insistent upon forcing Iron Projects that you are blinded to experienced editors' explanations for why the subjects, as presented, do not yet warrant an article. Good luck, m'man! Sorry it did not work out here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of this is getting a bit tl;dr, but I did my best to look at the salient points and as Cyphoidbomb eloquently explains, the sources do nothing more than demonstrate existence, and there's no evidence of notability. --Korruski^Talk 09:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I started wading through this AfD and it's wading through tar, but fundamentally the article is full of desperate cries for attention such as minor FM radio appearances, cites to Facebook (a red flag if ever there was one), forum posts (likewise), Discogs (not actually a reliable source) or actual reliable sources (eg: Culture Victoria) that don't mention the subject. If somebody can provide a reference in Billboard or Rolling Stone that verifies unquestionably that the group has been signed to a major label and released charting albums and singles, I'll change my mind - but I can't see it happening. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for contributing to the tar! I definitely could have been a little less verbose. My heart was in the right place, though.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AIRSCREEN Company GmbH & Co. KG

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)

Totally non-notable and very promotional article, created by an SPA who has tried to distribute related images (company material) throughout a number of articles (see File:Inflatable_Billboard_in_front_of_a_sports_stadium.jpg, for instance, inserted here). (The account is old, but I might still block it as a spam-only account.) Anyway, I can't find anything on this company in Google News or Books: not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: Keep it! This company is nearly 20 years old. They have invented the inflatable screen and if you do a picture search you find their products all over the world. It's like saying delete Apple because their wiki page has a promotional character, too. If this article seems too promotional it can be edited I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.47.42 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — 80.143.47.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, it's not like saying that at all. Apple's notability is proven by reliable sources, and if all you got is the suggestion "that we Google it", well, then that's not much. Incidentally, I did block the original creator for spamming. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even widening the search a bit (to just "The AIRSCREEN Company") reveals very little. Unless someone can come up with a better claim of notability, this article should be deleted.--Larry (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some links that might show a global relevance:
- "The AIRSCREEN company, based out of Germany, is the industry leader in producing high quality inflatable outdoor movie screens." http://www.southernoutdoorcinema.com/services.htm
- "We are talking international outdoor cinema with Christian Kremer, the Managing Director of the AIRSCREEN company based in Muenster, Germany. In 1994 Christian co-invent the AIRSCREEN. Today his inflatable movie screens are sold worldwide in seventy-five countries" http://blog.freshairflicks.com/
- "The AIRSCREEN Company in final of InAVate Magazine Technology Awards" http://www.prlog.org/11742257-the-airscreen-company-in-final-of-inavate-magazine-technology-awards.html, http://www.inavateonthenet.net/article/47865/InAVation-Awards-2012-recognises-pro-AV-excellence.aspx
- "We are the official representatives of the global company AIRSCREEN®." http://www.outdoorcinema.pl/en/
- "AIRSCREEN outdoor inflatable movie screens are made for outdoors and are the industry leader for inflatable movie screens." http://www.bmcinemas.com/matrix.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.212 (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — 80.187.106.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- "As the leader in the industry, numerous patents have been filed..." http://catalogs.infocommiq.com/avcat/ctl2861/index.cfm?exhibitor=312267
- "it remains the world’s leader in inflatable screens." http://www.futurebox.gr/product.php?lang=en&id=106
- "Recently, German company Airscreen, which manufactures inflatable hoardings, made its way to India." http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/22803_New-outdoor-format-Airscreen-comes-to-India
- "AIRSCREEN is to be found in over 60 countries of the world and is still revolutionising the world of outdoor cinema." http://www.screentrademagazine.com/#/airscreen-feb-2012/4560605741
- "AIRSCREEN Classic inflatable screens have been featured in Cannes and at the Venice Film Festival. [...] Produced by the AIRSCREEN Company in Germany" http://www.outdoor-movies.com/Inflatable-Screens/AIRSCREEN-52-100.aspx Keep as from what I see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.7 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Airscreen GmbH isn't just an ordinary company that produce wide variety of consumer products. Airscreen is original and unique product that completely changed the perspective of open air cinemas. This article explains invention and history of Airscreen providing all the general information about this product. Original Airscreen is present in more than 75 countries worldwide so that should be a good reason to keep this article!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris85 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Boris85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Since all of the sources mentioned by the above IP's are either blogs, press reports, or sales pitches, they are unreliable. Can you provide reliable sources of notability?--Larry (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs pointing out that these comments are not just fishy but also fail to point to reliable sources. There's nothing here but company talk and a blog or two. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article about nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all the articles I don't find promotional. Take a closer look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.149.43 (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — 78.52.149.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Is The New Yorker Magazine trustable enough? They featured an AIRSCREEN (from The AIRSCREEN Company) on their title page. Check http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2009/08/24/toc and AIRSCREEN Company's partner http://www.freshairflicks.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.3.38 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — 80.143.3.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

or here's a scan from an international cinema magazine (non advertorial): *~~Keep~~ http://www.airscreen.com/fileadmin/pdf_flyer/2011_07_Screentrade_Mag_016_017_MarketPlace_V4_02.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.3.38 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — 80.143.3.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ AIRSCREEN supports Michael Moore's Traverse City Film Festival for many years with the largest AIRSCREEN in the USA. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_City_Film_Festival and http://www.airscreen.com/en/about-us/references/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.3.38 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 October 2013 — 80.143.3.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm tempted to close this as delete myself. It's clear most or all of the keep votes are connected—probably both to each other and the company. Notability hasn't been demonstrated due to the lack if independent, reliable sources on the article or in this discussion. The New Yorker is a good source, sure, but depicting one of the company's products on a cover means precisely jack squat in terms of WP:N, nor is it clear that they're specifically depicting an Airscreen rather than a similar product. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (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. Zad68 18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KID ( Movie )

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

Non-notable film BOVINEBOY2008 15:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:V and being far TOO SOON. Lack of coverage fails WP:NF. Allow back only if/when it is released and if/when it gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 12 October 2013 (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) 04:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Árnason

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

This is an english wikipedia abd this article appears to be writen in Germen. The Cosmos Master (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks Icelandic or Norwegian to me, but I agree it should be deleted. I will note there is some irony in complaining about non-English articles, when you include a vast deal of typos in your own short sentence.IrishStephen (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ironic about it. Some people make typos, for all sorts of reasons, and can still believe the English wiki should have only English-language articles. Typos or no, The Cosmos Master was writing in English. freshacconci talk to me 03:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's Icelandic, and (according to Google Translate) says "Barbara Moray Williams Arnason (1911-1975) was an English painter". Despite the near-speediable condition of the current half-sentence article, the web has some information about her in both English and Icelandic. According to the Iceland Review, she married the Icelandic artist Magnús Á. Árnason in 1937 and moved to Iceland, and was significant enough an artist that in 2011 she was the subject of a centennial exhibition at the Gerðarsafn museum in Kópavogur in 2011.[1] Here is the museum's press release to the same effect.[2] (The museum doesn't seem to have an article on English Wikipedia but our article about the city mentions the museum and its collection of Barbara Arnason art.) Here is a 1994 article about her (written by her brother Alan Moray, I think) in the Icelandic paper Morgunblaðið [3] (Google translation here.) Her twin sister was the notable illustrator Ursula Moray Williams , and Ursula's obituaries mention Barbara as "a distinguished wood engraver and sculptor". [4][5] So: if others agree that she is potentially notable, I think a workable stub about her could be created from the existing web sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have now translated the article and added her sister. For future reference, articles written in foreign languages should be reported at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English; it happens surprisingly often and I and others can then translate them or report if they are duplicates of existing topics or clearly non-notable. I haven't had time to hunt for sources yet; thanks to Arxiloxos for beginning the task. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She evidently made an impact in Iceland; her work is in the permanent collection of a gallery, they held a retrospective to celebrate her centennial, she was included in a curators' choice show at the Reykjavík Art Museum, she rates 5 pages in a survey of 19th- and 20th-century Icelandic art, some of her work is frequently mentioned (her illustration of a work by Hallgrímur Pétursson, her mural in a Reykjavík school), and as mentioned above the obituaries for her sister also mention her as a noted artist. Two of us have been able to find several sources despite archiving problems with Icelandic material, and the fact the sources are almost all Icelandic is immaterial (although she is redlinked in the is.wikipedia article on the school, which I hope will be remedied soon). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability is not limited by country. Either she is notable or she is not; being notable only in Iceland is an oxymoron. The orignal objection seems to be that the article was in Icelandic. That is no longer the case. I note that the article was only created a couple of days ago. I suspect that the AFD nom did not give the creator a chance to finish writing it. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly now meets WP:ARTIST, due to expansion by Yngvadottir. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yngvadottir's efforts are commendable. It looks okay for the WP:ARTIST criteria. IrishStephen (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Tsukihime characters (non-admin closure). --Mdann52talk to me! 12:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roa Valdamjong

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tsukihime through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tsukihime characters unless someone wants to work and merge List of Tsukihime characters to Tsukihime. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tsukihime characters Characters are likely search terms as the anime has followers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2013 (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 Viacom (original). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom Enterprises

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

Page contains information that can be best summarized in a single paragraph on Viacom (original). No need for a separate article. Freshh (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, merge with the main Viacom article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles don't have to be deleted in order to be merged, people. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The main Viacom article should cover this.IrishStephen (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business technology management

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

Article seems to be written by btmcorporation.com with most of the small number of references and "see also" pointing back to their company. It may be a legitimate topic but I think this article should be scrapped. Bhny (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but probably delete based on obvious promotional tone and lack of suitable third-party sources. I began searching at Google News with "BTM Institute business technology management" and this is what I saw, probably more than half press releases (republished and original) and articles written by people affiliated with BTM Institute (such as this one and this one) thus promotional and not third-party (conflict of interest). I should also note that the first pages of news results show these problems and I finally something that wasn't a COI in 4th page here but it doesn't help much. In these results, you'll also find foreign results that pretty much look like republished PR. A search at Google Books also found results but are concerningly written by Faisal Hoque, a member of the institute and one of the writers of the COI articles. In that Google Books results, there are two results aren't affiliated with BTM Institute, and they are this (slim chance of usefulness though) and this (another slim chance because it's a brief mention). One final search all around failed to provide anything else. A search at thefreelibrary.com provided more press releases. I'm open to retracting my vote but based on my searches and the article's tone, I doubt there is much hope for this article at this time. For being an "institute" and a business science, there sure isn't much to support this article. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional involved in the problem space described by this article, I see no reason to include it in Wikipedia at all. I heartily support deleting it. The core concept of "business technology management" is simply an attempt, by one commercial organization (hardly an institute), to rebrand the field of Enterprise Architecture under a moniker of their choosing in order to improve their ability to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. This is clearly a commercial activity (advertising). If others deem the "branding" to be noteworthy, I'd support a redirect so that the term "Business Technology Management" redirects to the article for "Enterprise Architecture". Nickmalik (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is so badly worded as to be word salad. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shardul Pandey Talks

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

Internet radio program that does not pass our notability guidelines. There's no coverage of anything outside of the website it's hosted on, and the site itself appears to be just promoting hosting and other services. In fact, other than some of the odd interview transcripts there's nothing at all to even suggest any evidence of this. The article was previously about the host and deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not even notable for the WP:ONEEVENT that the article claims makes the subject notable. No coverage found in any WP:RSes. Simply not notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trakia blackout of 2013

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

Not notable event. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 15:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions....William 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was entered with a purpose to record it as an event and includes a reference from the only accountable source, explanation of the distribution utility. Anyway, should be deleted if not applies to Wiki rules. And sorry if I wrote this somewhere wrong, I don't know all the exact discussion rules and ways for the topic. ...FRHD 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this topic and I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies. None of the points listed on that page seem to apply to the article, so how can it be used as a deletion reason. How is an event that affected millions of people for two hours not notable? CodeCat (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:EVENT. This is just passing local news that is not notable as an encyclopaedia entry. All that happened was that a device failed in a substation. Power failures occur all the time; they are trivialities outside their own locality. There have been power failures in my neighbourhood that did not even make the news. — O'Dea (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A blackout which affects at least 1.5 million people is notable. Maybe it needs more references. But it has nothing to do with deleting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfall affects many more people every day than a power cut, but we have an article about the rotation of the earth; we do not devote articles to describing each nightfall. An encyclopaedia is not an anthology of brief electrical incidents with local effects. There was nothing unique about this power loss: it was brief and it did not alter the course of history. It is a triviality. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I quite agree with O'Dea.This is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. But you can see many articles about blackout events in WP. (2003 Italy blackout, 2003 London blackout, Northeast blackout of 1965 etc.) (In fact many others about other evil events such as eartquakes, floods and fires ) Deleting only this one without deleting the others is not fair. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that there are other blackout articles is an example of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (please read), meaning it is an invalid argument. Indeed, 2003 London blackout should also be deleted.

Northeast blackout of 1965 is notable because it was an international blackout affecting 30 million people. It was sensational and unprecedented at the time; it astonished people so much that it featured afterwards in works of popular culture. 2003 Italy blackout is another international incident that affected 56 million people. An entire nation, Italy, lost power for 13 hours, the most serious blackout there for 70 years.

Please do not create distractions with "earthquakes, floods and fires". We are talking about a temporary loss of electricity, not natural disasters. The blackout in Trakya was a small regional loss of power that affected only 1.5 million people for only two hours. Such blackouts occur frequently throughout the world and are therefore a normal feature of life, and do not warrant encyclopaedia articles about them. They rarely ever make news outside the affected region or nation. In Costa Rica alone, nationwide blackouts are a constant feature of life. Here are news reports of just a few of them: in 1997, 2001, 2007, and 2012. None of these warrant encyclopaedic study.

The question of "fairness" does not arise in a discussion such as this. It is a red herring. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or undermine justice. Trakia will not experience painful jealousy just because the major Italian blackout has a Wikipedia article. — O'Dea (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable: transient event affecting relatively small region. Has not generated sufficient comment in reliable sources.--Larry (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the List of major power outages which includes "notable" power interruptions, with the relevant criterion being that it affected more than 1,000,000 person-hours, in this case 1.5 million people for over 2 hours or 3 million "person hours." If someone refers to other articles about similar events which survived AFDs, then it should not be dismissed out of hand as an "other stuff exists" argument since it might be a way to point to the consensus as to what level of disruption makes something notable enough for an article or for inclusion in a list such as the one I found. For a major outage which survived AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Southern California power outage. The list of major outages itself survived multiple AFDs. For an example of one which was smaller like this one and got merged to the list, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Portugal Blackout of 2000. Comparison of a blackout to it getting dark at night is not sensible, since twilight does not strand people in elevators or shut off traffic signals, water and sewage handling and medical equipment. It does not make sense to argue for deletion on the basis of some simple equipment failure or human error in setting a protective relay being the root cause. We look at effects, and their coverage, rather than causes in determining notability. Edison (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to merge to List of major power outages is redundant; the power failure has been documented there since September 25th, so deletion remains the preferred choice. — O'Dea (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Fourteen

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

Previously bundled in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume Fifteen in 2006 (no consensus to delete), which were all renominated and deleted in September 2012. It appears this one was just missed in the renom as it shares the same notability concerns. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For whatever reason, the original mass delete didn't mention this article -- but the same reasons still apply.--Larry (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2013 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive fuel brands

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

Pretty much an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Any company can sell petrol, and brand it as their own, e.g. supermarkets like Asda, Tesco and I guess QuikTrip and Walmart. Martin451 17:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I don't understand why the solution here isn't simply to limit the list to bluelinks or otherwise demonstrably notable brands, rather than deleting what strikes me, at first blush, to be a reasonable subject for a list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formally !voting "keep" in light of my initial comments and the comments by others. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adequately covered by the Category:Automotive fuel brands. Many items on this list are actually store brands (which could lead to lists of every product with a house brand), many are red links, and a few link to disambiguation pages. It is poorly compiled incomplete original research. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of a category does not contraindicate the existence of a list. This is not an indiscriminate list at all; remember that redlinks can be good in a list; as for links to dab pages, that's not a rationale for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a perfectly sound concept for a list and it's certainly not indiscriminate. Lists do a different job from categories - information can be added and red links fulfil a useful purpose - see the essay Wikipedia:Categories versus lists. The black links need sorting but that is an editing matter. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are obviously notable automotive fuel brands, and determining the particular inclusion criteria for a list is a matter for normal editing. It should also be obvious that the list's inclusion criteria could simply match that of Category:Automotive fuel brands (and note that none of the four store brands mentioned by the nominator are included in that category), so it is nonsensical to claim that a list is necessarily indiscriminate but the corresponding category is not. And as noted above, we do not delete a list just because there is a category, per WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some drivers, most notably those in Formula One (example one, example two) bang on about Shell fuel to the exclusion of all others like a broken record, so compiling a list of what gets sold where to whom is a worthwhile topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 15 October 2013 (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) 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Sams, Jr.

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

Aside from a mention in Pearson's book, cannot establish WP:N [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole book (by a reporter and a professor) and a raft of newspaper and magazine articles on this murder. It was perhaps the highest-profile trial in the country while it was happening, and even spawned conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton's participation. I don't have the time or interest to write it up myself. I suggest that you take it up and do something productive instead of stalking me.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an important trial (in Black Panther history) and Sams was one of three murderers along with Warren Kimbro and Lonnie McLucas who also have articles. Sourcing no problem see Google Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As observed above, Sams was one of the major figures in one of the most nationally (and internationally) prominent trials in the early 1970s. Somewhere along the line the original reference got deleted, and it never was cited specifically for inline citations as it should have been, but the fix is to fix the inline citations, not delete the article. Gzuckier (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major figure in internatinal prominent trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, notable individual. Giant Snowman 12:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Internet-related terms

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

This article is, in my view, a clear violation of WP:NOTDIC and should therefore be deleted. Jinkinson talk to me 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Glossaries are valid per WP:L and the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. However, this is not merely a glossary but also a list of articles. It is related to Index of Internet-related articles and Outline of the Internet, but it doesn't appear to be redundant with any other list, so it could be allowed to remain as a list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Lists (which is also MOS:LIST) shows that list-based articles comprising a list of related WP articles is a valid sort of article. It explicitly indicates glossaries are one allowed/encouraged type of list-based article. The entries should be encyclopedically explanatory definitions, i.e., not just dictionary definitions. Many of the definitions in this article do have encyclopedic content, as they are not just about the word, e.g., ADSL. Other entries are short and could be expanded through normal editing. A valid type of list-based article that looks well formatted and with no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each list needs to have clear criterion as to what is on it or off of it. But this list seems quite arbitrary, with a few attempts at technical terms (somewhat dated) like ADSL , while most are jargon or slang. Perhaps a list of Internet slang terms could be justified, but this list would be woefully incomplete. A list of technical terms would never ever be complete or up to date; there is just not the editor-hours to be practical. Some of the terms here do not have articles (so are uncited, and not clear they are just neologisms coined by some Wikipedia editor so hard to verify) and some seem to be jokes, like several that redirect to Epic fail. W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I went back and forth a lot on this one... in the end it's the following guidance from the draft Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries that swayed me:

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary; correspondingly, explain glossary terms descriptively (just like an encyclopedia article would do it, but shorter). Only rarely and sparingly add dictionary definitions to a glossary on Wikipedia (usually solely for the sake of completeness). Lists of dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary; you can still link to them from Wikipedia articles.

Do not add everyday words. Include only specialized terms specific to or having a special meaning within the subject of the glossary.

All entries must be verifiable with reliable sources, just like the content of regular articles."

So what are the chances that this glossary will ever meet these requirements? In my opinion, really, really low. Are we ever going to be able to create enough verifiable encyclopedic content to explain "tweet" descriptively? As sympathetic as I am to developing articles that could turn into something some day, this one seems like it needs a dose of WP:TNT. It simply doesn't seem to meet the (chaotic, often conflicting) criteria we have in place for lists and specifically glossaries. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list article. Rename it to call it List instead of Glossary if you want. Notice how many blue links are there in it? It is useful for those wishing to learn about internet related terms, far more useful than a category because you can see a brief definition here, and then click the blue link to the main article for anything you want more information about. Dream Focus 01:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of notable WP articles and as such perfect navigational aid, compliant with WP:LIST. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Statistics of Rajshahi University

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

Fails Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Faculties and academic colleges (notability independent of Rajshahi University). The article creator also appears to have a COI (only other article creation Khandkar Manwar Hossain is associated with the department). ‎ Solomon 7968 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Department-level subunits of universities are almost never independently notable and this one shows no evidence of being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the main university article per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crime scene getaway

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

Dicdef with no sources. Article is completely unchanged from last AFD in 2010, which said "keep, there are sources" but somehow, no one saw fit to WP:PROVEIT or put in any kind of effort. First several pages on Google Books were only novels that used the phrase "getaway car". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, and now that I look at it for the first time in three years, it's truly bad. Let me take a crack at fixing it. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue tomorrow. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now per WP:HEY. Can somebody be a nice person: Please proof-read and copy-edit it? Bearian (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Oh, I !vote keep. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per improvements by Bearian during AfD. WP:HEY applies.Cavarrone 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the vast improvements to the article by Bearian. (WP:HEY) Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wollongong Faculty of Social Sciences

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

No evidence that it meets the notability required by Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. Suggest redirect to University of Wollongong. PamD 10:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Wollongong_Faculty_of_Law,_Humanities_and_The_Arts. PamD 20:06, 12 October 2013 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wollongong Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health

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

No evidence that it meets the notability required by Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. Suggest redirect to University of Wollongong. PamD 10:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Wollongong_Faculty_of_Law,_Humanities_and_The_Arts. PamD 20:07, 12 October 2013 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wollongong Faculty of Law, Humanities and The Arts

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

No evidence that it meets the notability required by Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. PamD 10:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: suggest redirect to University of Wollongong. PamD 10:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I advanced an argument for deletion, and proposed a redirect, which is a deletion of all the content of the page- not the same as merging or moving. Doesn't that come within AfD? (I won't raise this same question on the other 2 similar pages, to avoid repetition, but will be interested in an answer here). Should I just have boldly redirected? I thought if I did so it might be quickly reverted, so came here to get a consensus on whether there should be a redirect rather than an article for the faculty. PamD 13:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is a specific function of the Wikimedia software. It doesn't actually delete the content but, instead, makes it unavailable to ordinary editors and readers. Because it has this effect, it is not possible for ordinary editors to revert it in the usual way, as they can with other edits. This is why the function is tightly controlled, being only performed by admins with the sanction of AFD and similar processes. Redirection is not the same because it may be performed by means of an ordinary edit. People keep trying to expand the scope of AFD to add weight to their edits but this is improper because AFD is already overloaded with poorly attended discussions and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* OK, thanks for explanation. I take the point that converting to a redirect, while over-writing all text, is not the same as deletion. I see from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that an article under AfD must not be turned into a redirect, so I'll withdraw this, wait for the AfD to be closed, then convert the article to a redirect and see what happens. PamD 20:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, per the discussion above. PamD 20:04, 12 October 2013 (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) 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of animal sexual abuse

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

Arbitrary selection of reports, none involving notable persons. Zoophilia already covers this topic. No clear criteria for inclusion, one would expect that if it aimed to be comprehensive the list would be extremely long. Secondly, some of the items mention charges or allegations against named people without saying whether they were convicted, c.f. WP:BLPCRIME. LukeSurl^{t c} 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. : Zoophilia doesn't cover this subject by far, because zoophilia isn't about the incidents related with listings of notable or popular cases. Another thing is that each of the case that has been mentioned which involved "arrest" or "allegation" or "sentence", not limited to any one of those things. Like it is written in the lead. Also WP:BLPCRIME crime is when you directly assert someone with the allegation like.. "Mr.x is a serial killer and rapist, who..." None of the text of this whole page seems to be doing so. If you see pages, such as Rape statistics, Gang rape, and others, you will find large amount of incidents to be noted in the page, in which criminal of the case is still not convicted. OccultZone (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons outlined at the very recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. These are just arbitrary lists created to "name and shame" individuals who would likely sue the authors were this hosted on a private blog. Stalwart111 10:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, I disagree. I looked into the article that you have mentioned, that one was interestingly copy pasted article, while this one is original. Another thing is that "name and shame" applies when the name is not published by anyone else, but these names are published by large number of reliable sources. You are confusing 2 things with one. OccultZone (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "name and shame" applied there and it applies here too, where people claim that just because a news article somewhere included someone's name, they can dispense with WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and publish it here. Doesn't work that way. That one was original too and was deleted - it then came back from the dead in a different form (that AFD) and was deleted again. Stalwart111 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since these cases are highly rare and notable, where would do you think they should be written then? If this is not a separate page. OccultZone (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare and notable are not the same thing. None of the "entries" are likely to pass WP:EVENT or WP:CRIME and Wikipedia doesn't exist to cover every news story, nor does it exist to provide a directory of non-notable alleged criminal acts. So the simple answer to your question is: nowhere. Stalwart111 11:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, what if this page includes only those events where the ~~victim~~ perpetrator is officially convicted and sentenced by the court? OccultZone (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - conviction is not a notability criteria either. Stalwart111 11:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual reason behind the deletion of this article or one you mentioned was WP:BLPCRIME, but now, if only those names are added that have been convicted. What can be the issue? OccultZone (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it violates WP:BLPCRIME is one of a number of reasons for deletion. But fixing the article so that it no longer explicitly violates policy does not then mean it automatically meets our inclusion criteria. That's like finding a car with no doors, no engine and no steering wheel covered with a tarpaulin and saying, "I removed the tarpaulin, now we can go for a drive". Yeah? Stalwart111 11:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get you, you can explain if there's some issue left with the page. OccultZone (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT pretty much covers everything we haven't covered so far. Stalwart111 12:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to improve the article, but I'm persuaded by the arguments of LukeSurl and Stalwart111, particularly the deletion arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. None of the incidents in itself is notable by Wikipedia standards, nor any of the people involved, and I can't see how it can be turned into a useful article. Ruby Murray (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few cases where the alleged one has been convicted though. OccultZone (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this can of worms per nom, per BLP1E, per BLPCRIME, per NOTDIRECTORY, per NOTNEWS, per EVENT, per CRIME. Blackberry Sorbet 13:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that any of the items are notable; no selection criteria, so list appears to be a random and arbitrary collection. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111, Non notable list fails WP:BLPCRIME. Davey2010T 18:13, 10 October 2013 (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. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary !votes. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Street, London

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

No indication of any notability: it exists, and two offices are located there, and there's a photo of its corner, but otherwise it's just a street. Deprodded without commented. PamD 09:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This street is located in the rich area of Mayfair in the middle of London. All such historic streets are notable as there have been countless books about the topography of London over the centuries. Please see WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the unequivocal demonstration by Warden of the notability and interest of this topic with solid sources. The article can clearly be developed further, but there is already more than sufficient reason to keep it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome but we had an edit conflict just now. I think I've kept it together but will pass the torch now, to avoid further confusion... Warden (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is now no question about notability. The street clearly has an interesting history, and the article deserves expansion (Warden asked if I was interested). Google Books says there are about 241,000 results for the exact title. There will not be anything like that many in preview mode, but there will be plenty. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs significant improvement, but there's plenty of potential for expansion,and it already seems notable. PhilMacD (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of the coverage seems to be no more than a mention, but put together there's probably enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I think it's clear that this meets guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been demonstrated courtesy of excellent work by Colonel Warden .The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: it is now obviously a useful article on a notable street. At the point when I nominated it, it was still the uninformative stub, with no indication of notability, which had been dePRODded without comment five weeks earlier. A quick google showed nothing but addresses. It's good to see it expanded now, but it would have been helpful if the dePRODder had given an informative edit summary or talk page comment, or just added a bit of sourced content to indicate notability at that stage. PamD 8:22 am, Today (UTC+1)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Krav Maga

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

Advertisment for a non-notable group. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources and reads like an advertisement. I see nothing that supports any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes no claims to distinguish 'Operational Krav Maga' from 'Krav Maga'. Not notable. jmcw (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2013 (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 (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time (Paris Hilton song)

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

This explains it better. The song passes WP:GNG but fails WP:NSONGS, which states that leaving the notability aside an article about a song is "only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song was released yesterday, and the current information just verify that it exists. If required the text "Good Time is a song by Paris Hilton featuring Lil Wayne. It was written by them and Afrojack, who also produced it. The video was directed by Hannah Lux Davis and was released on October 8 along with the song." can be added to Paris Hilton biography. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I note that Tbhotch quotes one half of a sentence from NSONGS, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The second half adds "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article is very, very likely to grow beyond a stub. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator. Yes, you did not misread this. The nominator said on my talk page that "AFD is useless as the song eventually will chart in the next seven days." Also keep per nominator's statement that "the song passes WP:GNG." There is much more to be written about this composition.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly done AFD. There's plenty of reliable sources out there with information about the single that could be added to the article (just do a quick Google search). An acceptable stub until someone has the time to add the content to the article. I would myself (I generally like to save articles from AFD), but I just don't have the time right now. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just listing a few here: An indept article about the song's lyrics, indept article about the music video. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Even if the nominator is correct ("passes WP:GNG but fails WP:NSONGS") that would be a reason to redirect, not to delete. Peter James (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. No article deserves an AfD in 4 days. BTW, If it can pass GNG it must pass NSONGS, but that's another matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether or not the song charts, sufficient coverage exists in reliable music sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. While there is overlapping material from these examples, I believe there's enough to satisfy the "reasonably detailed article" standard. Gong show 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a very notable single from Paris Hilton and it deserves it own article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This song will probably chart. Derpian (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgivukkah

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

A neologism that will probably not be discussed past this year. Sources in the article are spotty. Another option is to move the page to Wiktionary, if allowed by their inclusion guidelines. Tek022 | _Comments? 03:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even close.--Larry (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took me just a few clicks to find a ton of references: Charleston Daily Mail, ABC News, Daily Mail (London), Huffington Post, Times of Israel, Jewish Journal, Jerusalem Post, and AP. They will be plenty more coverage by the time the holiday arrives. So what if won't be notable next year? In fact, it probably won't be notable again for another 80,000 years. The article can always be deleted later. We write for today. Now, in the present, along that fine line that divides past and future, this holiday is notable. The Viking at Stamford Bridge (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of WP:EVENT make it notable? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. We write articles that have encyclopedic importance, this should not be part of an encyclopedia. Tek022 | _Comments? 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting case. It certainly meets wp:GNG. The assertion in the nomination that refs were spotty in the article is of no moment -- the coverage need merely exist, and need not be in the article. And the suggestion that coverage does not exist in the real world is belied by the articles devoted wholly to this subject whgich are discoverable both in a google search -- which should be done by a nom per wp:before before making a nomination -- and by those reflected now in the article. So the only question is whether wp:event is a bar. I haven't yet decided on my !vote.

But to answer your question, the parts of WP:EVENT that suggest that it is notable include the following: a) "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" (certainly the case here, with international coverage); b) "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" (again, certainly the case); and c) "Articles about breaking news events...are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT. No indication of lasting significance or lasting effect (as even the above keep vote admits), lack of in-depth analysis. It's just a silly news story a few people picked up on, and an attempt by the Gitells to sell some dubious merchandise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Meets WP:NEO insofar as this page is not being used to increase usage of the term--it is already being used a great deal (googling it gives nearly 2 million results), and has been the subject of a number of articles in reliable sources, including those cited above. It's even been mentioned by Stephen Colbert, if that helps (it probably doesn't). [14] Jinkinson talk to me 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the media has picked it up, and will continue to do so, is exactly what provides evidence of notability. The dilemma arising from the fact these two festivals will be coinciding, an event that occurs once in a lifetime, creates is significant from a socio-cultural standpoint. Do I serve turkey or latkes as the main course of our Thanksgivukkah feast? When exactly do we light the candles? At sundown, as Jewish law mandates, or is it acceptable to wait until halftime of whichever football game is on at the time? Is it acceptable to fall into a bloated tryptophan-induced coma before opening the Thanksgivukkah gifts and receiving such long-awaited items as a pair of slacks with a flexible waistband (just in case you grow a bit more next year) from Uncle Irving and Aunt Shirley. This event will be generating Jewish legal issues in halakha that even the late sainted Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, zatzal, would have been unlikely to resolve. Stephen Colbert's imprimatur should be sufficient to firmly establish the truthiness of Thanksgivukkah. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, you wrote that tongue-in-cheek, right? There are no halakhic questions about a secular holiday coinciding with a rabbinical one, and there's no halakha to eat latkes, either. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:EVENT. The plethora of sources only shows that it's a slow news day. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Delete this please. Coined by a woman from Boston? Slow news day indeed... This encyclopedia is teh serious, not the funny pages. -- Y not? 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yoninah/ --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Thanksgivukkah has received a lot of media attention and so has this article. If nothing else, the article is viewed hundreds of times a day. PrairieKid (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This term now yields 25,900 results on GNews, so I don't think there should be any notability issue at this point. But it seems that some editors still object to the inclusion of humorous material. The Viking at Stamford Bridge (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this discussion seems to revolve around whether this should be notable, not whether it actually is. I think the topic is silly and it should not be notable. Based on all those little numbers at the end of sentences, there are a wide swath of media reporting on the topic making it notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sometimes I think WP really has trouble telling fluff news from real news. This clearly fails WP:EVENT (it's not even really an event, it's a date!) and will be forgotten the next day. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article is about the fact that two holidays land on the same day by a mere freak of the calendar. Since one holiday is only celebrated in one country and the other holiday is only celebrated by one religion, we could crack the calendar open and find dozens of such freak occurrences. For example, in 2014 the Hindu religious holiday of Holi falls on the same day as St. Patrick's Day. That doesn't make it encyclopaedic for Hindus living in Ireland. How about that Thanksgiving in Canada falls on the same day as Columbus Day? The fact that this is getting any traction is that both are celebrated in the United States, which smells a bit of systemic bias. Water-cooler stories like this are red meat for fluff stories, which is why so many sources can be found. However, cutesy-wootsy fluff stories about a non-notable event simply because it has a cutesy-wootsy protologism don't automatically make something notable. In terms of actual guidelines, WP:EVENTCRIT specifically calls items like this out as not notable: Routine kinds of news events (including [..] stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find, in such instances, such widespread international coverage in diverse sources across three continents (not limited to the U.S, as you suggest)? With many articles devoted entirely to the event -- rather than passing mentions -- as here? It's that, of course -- not the fact of the convergence -- which confers notability. And which makes it anything but "routine".--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said Thanksgiving was a US-only holiday. At no time did I suggest coverage was US only. Please do not twist my words. Also, I do not want to fall into the trap of Wikilawyering. I'm not going to debate words such as "routine" while ignoring the spirit of WP:EVENT. When *I* read the guidelines, I feel the spirit that behind these guidelines that its overall intent was to exclude items of a transitory, non-impacting nature -- even if it got a lot of fluff coverage at the time. Now, we can play word games and say "The Israel Times wrote a piece so now its international coverage!" while ignoring the overall spirit here, but I don't want to do that. Sorry.

My overall stance is that the argument that "It has coverage, therefore notable" is actually twisting the actual policy of "If it is notable, it must has coverage". While all things that are notable must be well-covered, there are many things that are well-covered that are not notable and we have a plethora of guidelines (including WP:EVENT) and policies (such as WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS) that wouldn't be needed if the only criteria for inclusion was being well-covered by the media. For me to say "keep", I need more than mere coverage. I need to see it pass the spirit of those guidelines and policies, and I simply don't in this case. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the scope of coverage that is key here. And the coverage of this is not US-only, but rather across three continents. And clearly this is anything but routine -- just the opposite. As far as weighing coverage, we look at the depth of the coverage (are there articles solely about the subject -- though this is not necessary, it can be important, and here we have a great number of such articles), and is it local in scope (here it is international in scope), and are there many RSs covering it (here, a great number). We try to avoid editor POV substituting for the judgment of the RSs, as to whether it is worthy of substantial RS coverage. A number of papers outside the US wrote on the subject, not just one. And the US coverage by the Wall Street Journal, and Huffington Post, and ABC, and CNBC, etc., all show this coverage to be just the opposite of the strictly local coverage the spirit of our guidelines steers us away from. It strikes me that it overwhelmingly passes wp:GNG. It is the opposite of "routine." And wp:oneevent is discussed above, and states inter alia that: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" -- rather than ignoring the coverage, as you did, it focuses precisely on the coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for just the reasons I stated above. Unlike you, I shall not repeat myself other than to say that I feel that WP:COMMONSENSE tells me no in this case. You may call it POV (which I take exception to, btw), but I call it my interpretation of the spirit of WP:EVENT. If you feel so damn strong about this, feel free to add your own "keep" !vote rather than arguing with other editors, ok? I'm not changing my !vote. I said "Delete". I stand by "Delete". Move on! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT and the comments of Epeefleche. The article refers to a singular cultural phenomenon akin to, say, an extremely rare solar eclipse. The relevant question is whether people care about this as much as they care about the solar eclipse, and a simple Google search reveals that they care about it a great deal more. From WP:EVENT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Check. Of course none of us can know whether the event will have lasting impact, but the fact that it has received this level of attention a month before it has actually happened gives every indication that it will. Finally, the fact that the title of the article is a neologism, which is the nom's declared rationale for deleting, is incidental and irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Whoever prefers "2013 Hanukkah-Thanksgiving Co-occurrence" or some such name should take it up on the article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it's obviously a notable phenomenon / event, per the sourcing, and seems likely to remain so (though perhaps not of huge notability) after its passing. The fact that it's a newly coined term is a red herring, the event itself is not something newly discerned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Another awful WP:NEOLOGISM that has no long-term notability. References in WP:NEWS do not make it a notable topic. You have got to be kidding me if you think a made-up portmanteau for a one-time coincidence is a "singular cultural phenomenon", even if buzzfeed made a list about it. The WP:EVENT has no short- or long-term impact, even if the hyperactive media has mentioned a meaningless coincidence. As Shinmawa pointed out, WP:EVENTCRIT makes it clear that routine water cooler talk is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 10:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Although there have been multiple articles on this, even in the Wall Street Journal, there is no importance to it from a religious or an American Jewish cultural perspective. The two holidays overlap at times, but the only difference here is that Thanksgiving is the first night of Chanukah, and some marketers have jumped all over it. This does not happen again for 70,000 years. All it means is that a lot of kids aren't going to get their presents until the second night or first morning, since they'll be at relatives the first night celebrating Thanksigiving instead, and Dad will be too busy overdosing over L-trytophan and watching football to deal with running home to give the kids their presents.Sposer (talk)

Keep Supported by sources. For instance: "Another seller is hawking a plastic dreidel filled with kosher candy corn as a 'Thanksgivukah Special.'" Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a classic version of WP:Recentism if there ever was one. Another case of editors confusing breadth of coverage with depth if coverage. Just because it appears everywhere for a short time does not mean it is going to have the the staying power for it to become truly notable. The sources that are being cited are not news but human interest fluff pieces that are not intended to be serious, in depth pieces that have significant editorial oversight that would be needed to make this notable beyond the the 24 hour news cycle. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets wp:GNG. Overwhelmingly. Entire articles devoted to it, with depth of coverage. From top-level RSs. In three continents. Articles in a great number of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, ABC News, MSNBC, New York Daily News, Daily Mail (UK), Maariv (Israel), Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Charleston Daily Mail, Sun Sentinel, Deseret News, and Tablet Magazine.

Furthermore, a reading of wp:EVENT indicates that it is notable under that guideline. As the guideline says: "Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Certainly the case here. Similarly, the guideline states: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". And that is also the case, as it affects a group of millions of Jewish Americans.

The only impact is that there were some articles written on it and a few people are taking advantage of a mis-represented event. There have been eight overlaps with Chanukah currently ongoing during Thanksgiving since 1776. So, it is not common, but it is far from unheard of. That it is the first day is meaningless. That it is getting new coverage is cute, but it does not impact either American Jewish culture (outside of a couple people wasting money on Turkey Menorahs), or Thanksgiving itself. It certainly is not encylopedic. Wide coverage does not imply that the event is meaningful. If this was likely to result in a change in the way American Jews celebrate either holiday, there would be some value in keeping the article. But, an encylopedia is not a newspaper and should not have an article for every human interest story that crops up, even if there were many stories posted.Sposer (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reading of the policy wp:Neologism, similarly, shows this to be just the sort of neologism that the policy indicates is in fact notable. As it states: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources."

Some of the delete !voters based their !votes on non-wp criteria. For example, while admitting to its robust coverage across the globe by top-level RSs, they personally find the subject silly. But, as editor Revelation put it, "this discussion seems to revolve around whether this should be notable, not whether it actually is." And, as he said, even if we individually find it to be "silly," if it meets wp's notability criteria (which for the above reasons I believe it does), that is what matters.

Some !voters also assert that the robust, in-depth, world-wide coverage is due to a "slow news day." A "24-hour cycle." But all we know is that this coverage has been going on for not one day, but rather for weeks. And it is crystal balling it to say that it will only continue for another month or two. And as to the WP:RECENT -- that's just an essay, the opinion of one or more editors, and reading it actually presents support for articles such as this one, while noting that some editors may not like them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate that you finally weighed in with your own !vote rather than just chucking grenades from the cheap seats. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are we going to be talking about this after the day passes? For it to be more than recentism, there is an requirement of ongoing and continuing importance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whimsical as it may seem, it passes our general notability guidelines. Enjoy your Thanksgivukkah. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that it does not pass the 5th bullet of WP:GNG. While it has sources (no dispute), it fails WP:NOT and WP:IINFO, a good part because it IS whimsical. Merely having sources is not a guarantee that is is notable, per WP:GNG. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read how IINFO is supposed to apply. There is no violation of policies whatsoever in this topic; your comment amounts to you not liking the article. Whimsical-sounding topics are not less worthy than other topics. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am surprised that editors are so busy trying to prove this subject is notable and ignoring the issue of WP:NEOLOGISM, the fact that this term was conceived out of the blue and won't last later than November 28. Basic Wikipedia policy in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neologisms and new compounds clearly states: Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that editors are so busy trying to prove this subject is not notable that actually do not read the very policies they link. From WP:NEOLOGISM: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. - This is exactly the case here, it is possible to pull together many facts, plenty of sources about the term or -in this case- concept. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCRIMINATE is an essay and a highly flawed one at that for many of the reasons stated on that essay's talk page. For one thing, the essay confuses "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection" with "Wikipedia does not contain collections of indiscriminate information" as the essay focuses exclusively on lists. It goes downhill from there. I do not accept that essay to be representative of the policy and reject it out of hand. While it is true that I don't "like" the article per se, that is not why I am against its conclusion. I would appreciate that you do not state my motivations on my behalf. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to understand WP:IINFO: fine. In any case, simply saying WP:IINFO without explaining why this is "indiscriminate" (hint: it is an excellently discriminate topic) or what other policies this article would violate is irrelevant. Point is, the article violates no policy, it is full of sources about the topic, and you can't use WP:IINFO as a jolly card to delete stuff you don't like. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you politely to stop putting words in my mouth and assuming my motivations. I'm asking again, more strongly, to stop putting words in my mouth. You do NOT know what I want or don't want. You do NOT know what I like or don't like. You are wrong to assume my motivations and I take exception to you asserting them. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly violates virtually every item listed here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) in Inclusion Criteria. It will have no enduring historical significance. It has no lasting effect. Although there is diverse coverage, it is human interst coverage and will not be re-analyzed (outside of maybe an article about the 1000s of Turkey Dreidels and Menorahs available for $0.99 since almost nobody bought them). It does however fit perfectly into the non-noteable category of water cooler stories and viral stories. The coverage is not analysis. It just mentions a calendar oddity, that is misreported anyway, since the significance ought to be if this occured on the first night of Chanukah, which it does not. There will be no duration of coverage past Thanksgiving. The only argument I have seen is that there have been alot of articles and as per this: " a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable", that is not enough. This is non-notable and non-encyclopedic in the extreme!Sposer (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In NEVENT, it actually passes WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. That is more than enough in my book. I understand you couldn't care less about the topic, and I don't really care about it too: this is however no reason to make a disservice to our readers by refusing to cover a well sourced, notable topic. That we don't care about something does not mean nobody is allowed to care about it. In this case sources cared a lot about the topic: this is enough for our guidelines, and it is more than enough for me. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot look at any one guideline alone. The notability criteria clearly explain where the scope, diversity and in depth criteria are meaningless, and this is a perfect example of it. That said, if the community wants to sully Wiki with this waste of computer bytes, that is what Wiki is about.Sposer (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These criteria are not meaningless at all here. Given that we're not made of paper, we can indeed afford to "waste computer bytes" for things you personally dislike. Let us all remember we're here for the readers, not to satisfy our ego in building a useless cathedral. I don't care about Thanksgivukkah, I find it silly, I am not even American nor Jewish -yet this is a notable topic, it has received coverage by sources, and as such we can and should cover it as well, so that our readers can read it up and make their own mind. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High-profile notable term. Clearly satisifies WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (or Weak Keep). As much as anything else, I wonder what this article will look like in a year—or if anyone will even notice it by then. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary: once notable, forever notable. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like it. Zargulon (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2013 (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) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam King (Scottish footballer born 1995)

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played a professional game[15]. Tassedethe (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, standard non-notable footballer. Can be recreated if he makes appearance in FPL or senior national team. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a young footballer that hasn't been subject of significant coverage in reliable sources yet, which means it fails WP:GNG. Additionally, he hasn't played in a fully pro league either or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject also fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nichols

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

No reliable sources to support notability, and none found via Google search. JNW (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--fails WP:BIO; most of sources are either a forum (not reliable) or just a video of his audition, which could be filmed and uploaded by anyone and as such does not indicate notability. Reeks of self promotion. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant independent coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2013 (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.