Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 7 - Knowledge

Source 📝

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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A timeline that consists only of plot information, using only the books themselves as sources. As it stands, the majority of the information is just random, non important trivia, and the information that is not is pretty much already covered in sufficiently in articles such as Harry Potter universe and in the plot sections of the various books themselves. Thus, this is a rather unnecessary split from those pages. PROD was declined, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete, entirely in-universe, no external sources, no criteria for what's included. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to somewhere else more appropriate. Looks fascinating, but only primarily sourced. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per our editing policy. The sourcing is easy to improve as there are entire books written about this stuff such as Harry Potter and History. We already document numerous aspects of the setting in the Harry Potter universe article and some chronology and history seems a sensible addition to this. Warden (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    As we can check in its Amazon preview, Harry Potter and History only features a timeline as an appendix and is strictly a reproduction of primary content without any comment or analysis from the author. And WP:otherstuffexists still isn't policy or guideline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The applicable policy here is WP:IMPERFECT as this article has only existed for a day. Complaining about a lack of sources is absurd in such a case as I have immediately produced a substantial book-length source and there plenty more out there such as Muggles, Monsters and Magicians: A Literary Analysis of the Harry Potter Series. Warden (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    WP:IMPERFECT is not applicable in AfDs in which the issue is one of notability and when discussion doesn't bring proofs of notability, especially when it is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Either enough sources are brought to build a notable article, or they are not and the article is deleted. As I have already said, the first source you cited doesn't provide significant coverage as it is just reproduction of primary content devoid of any analysis. It is absurd to talk about "book length sources" if topic is only covered in one appendix. Your new source is exactly the same, just an annex, the topic of the timeline itself is not covered so that more than "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN) could be written. If you're so intend on proving the topic is notable, then use your sources to build a decent real-world analysis section and we'll see. Until then, just presenting trivia and shouting "it's notable!!!!!!!!!" won't help you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The entire book is a good source for this topic because it relates the history of the Harry Potter to the history of the real world. Such detailed commentary provides good context and analysis and so ticks all the boxes for our coverage of fiction. The current state of the article does not yet reflect this as it has just been started and so is just a stub. The source demonstrates the good potential of the topic and our editing policy encourages us to develop from an imperfect first draft. The notability of the topic is well established by the multiple substantial sources which detail and comment upon the events and chronology of the setting. Your nay-saying is irrelevant because you have done nothing to find these sources, do not seem to understand them or the relevant policies and just seem to be shouting trivial regardless of the size or quality of the sourcing. Please see WP:IDHT and WP:HONEST. Warden (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    We're debating about "Timeline of Harry Potter", not "Fictional and real worlds in Harry Potter". The current article is about the fictional events that happen in the fictional world of HP, ordered according to fictional dates, ie a chronological plot dump. I can't see the link between that and the book Harry Potter and history. While the book does provide some kind of commentary on the HP series in general, I can see nothing that could be of any use here, beyond a few unsignificant mentions. "Current state" is not a valid concern since this article existed under a different title for a long time before getting deleted, contributors had all the time to implement coverage, provided it existed, which it apparently did not since the article was deleted, and this discussion has not, so far, documented the appearance of significant coverage on the HP timeline since the last AfD. Again, the sources only contain unsignificant mentions that do not allow to write more than "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN). I don't see "multiple sources", and those you found certainly do not provide "substancial" enough coverage to write more than a few sentences, I see no details nor comments upon a chronological ordering of events in the HP saga that would warrant more plot coverage on WP than there already is at Harry Potter#Plot and the individual novel plots. I've already looked for sources before, and did it again now, only to come to the conclusion that all we could find would be too unsubstancial to warrant a stand-alone article for the HP timeline. I understand the sources perfectly, and it is precisely their size and their content (again, I only consider what pertains to the article currently discussed) which makes me say they do not allow us to write more than a few words on the subject and thus don't meet WP:GNG. To be clear, even if the topic was named "Timeline in HP", all we could write with the sources are these 2 sentences: "Apparently some occasional events in HP happen on the same date as real world events. And JKR messed up her chronology". You could probably stretch that into a 3 or 4 lines paragraph by padding it with examples, but it wouldn't go further than that, which means coverage is not significant enough for the article to stand on its own, and would probably better fit somewhere in Harry_Potter#Reception or Harry_Potter#Themes. And would you care to tell me which policies I would not understand ? As to your last sentence, you are politely but firmly reminded to remain civil and always treat others with consideration and respect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how reliable these sources are, really. If you are using them to support the fictional timeline as it exists now, it does not solve the problems of WP:NOTPLOT, nor does it not address the fact that all of this information is already covered elsewhere, in much more logical articles, such as Quidditch, Harry_Potter#Plot, etc. Creating an article that just regurgitates plot information that already exists in proper places on Knowledge is completely unnecessary. Both of those concerns were clearly stated in my initial nomination, and bringing up these sources do not address either of these. If you are talking about using these sources to actually talk about the Harry Potter chronology in relation to the real world and actually include real world perspectives on fictional plot elements, then you are talking about a completely different article than what exists now, and the entire thing would essentially have to be rewritten and renamed. In a case like that, deleting the offending article and just starting over from scratch is almost always simpler than insisting on keeping a poorly written article and then completely rewriting the whole thing anyways. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, it is always easier to keep the existing content and build upon it. Ordinary editing may be used to transform any part of the article and even change the title. Deletion is just destructive and disruptive and does nothing to assist the process of rewriting and improvement. To develop articles in this way is our explicit editing policy, "For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.". What we don't need is disruptive editors trying to derail this natural process of development by immediately leaping on new articles and trying to delete them - see WP:INSPECTOR. Warden (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    WP:INSPECTOR is an essay, not a guideline, and there are some of those that one could pull out to make any sort of argument. WP:TNT, for example, namely the sentence "Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over" emphasizing exactly what I just said. But, as neither of those two essays reflect actual Knowledge policy, bringing either of them up as an argument is largely pointless at this stage. Trying to bring WP:IMPERFECT into this argument is also rather pointless since no one is trying to claim that the article should just be deleted because its poorly written, they're arguing to delete it becase A) it goes against the policies of WP:NOTPLOT and WP:FICT, B) the information present in it is already covered in proper articles making this article an unnecessary split, and C) fixing both of these problems would require the entire article to be completely rewritten from the ground up, which goes far beyond simple improvement. Furthermore, I really do not know why you are suddenly resorting to making snide comments about the editors. Just because other editors are disagreeing with you over the validity of keeping this article or not, that is no reason to accuse them as being disruptive editors, being dishonest, or being too dense to understand policy. That is uncalled for and disappointing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete (G4) as recreation of deleted content (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination)). If G4 is not met, then Delete because it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, there are only primary sources and one unreliable. The source cited above doesn't provide significant enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and we would need multiple sources anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 5th nomination - LOL. That was two years ago and obviously a case of keep nominating until a deletionist admin can be found to cast a supervote. The fact that we have a fresh attempt at this shows that we should address this obvious need in some way rather than desperately trying to suppress it. Whether it's in the main article, the universe article or separate, there's we should outline the chronology of the Harry Potter cycle so that the various novels and movies and other spinoffs can be placed in context and the reader helped to understand their relationship. Warden (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If the keep votes didn't bring sources that could establish without doubt the notability of the topic, then it was not a case of supervoting but merely the acknowledgment that AfDs are not votes, and that no matter how many fans like a topic, if it does not fit the guidelines it goes away. If there is an encyclopedic need for a stand-alone article, then there should have encyclopedic content like real-world coverage. I don't see it, and I don't see the sources with which it could be build (again, your sources are completely trivial mentions).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The person also created an article for this information at but it got replaced with a redirect, they then creating the information here. I don't see any harm in having a timeline article for major fictional series, and this serious without a doubt is quite significant, and this does aid in the understanding of such a notable series List_of_Harry_Potter_related_topics. We used to have a lot of timeline articles for notable fictional series, but alas, not many remain. List of timelines in fiction. There was no consensus to delete this the first 4 times, but the 5th time it was decided to delete it. If you want something deleted you can keep trying until you get what you want. Horrible system really. Dream Focus 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    As per WP:AFDFORMAT ("AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Knowledge’s article guidelines and policies"), can I ask you to more clearly state which policy or guideline you think would allow the inclusion of this topic as a stand-alone article ? This article was brought here because it violates WP:NOTPLOT and is an unnecessary split, yet you don't adress these important issues in your recommendation (thus you don't explain why you "don't see any harm"). You seem to imply that any article can be written on a major fictional series, going directly against the fact that notability is not inherited. Unfortunately, not being of "any harm" or "aiding in the understanding" are not criteria for inclusion as a stand alone article, and you do note that this article is an attempt to circumvent its deletion (under the title "Chronology of Harry Potter") last year.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article simply reorganizes extant plot information from book articles into a new format, constituting an unacceptable synthesis. Other wikis exist for this sort of information, and there's no real-world coverage here that doesn't already exist in the book articles. — chro • man • cer  18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
According to WP:NOT, Knowledge articles are not plot summaries. The way that we ordinarily cover the plot of a fictional subject is in an article about the work itself. Occasionally, we might create an article about a fictional series, and have a broader plot summary there (which we do for the Harry Potter series) but it would always be in context with other information about its reception and development. In theory, any part of a fictional work could be developed into an appropriate article provided that information about reception and development exist. But in the case of this timeline, it would literally be reception and development about the story, and would largely duplicate the information at Harry Potter#Reception. That makes this article an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK, in addition to violating our WP:NOT#PLOT policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's a blizzard out there. The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Tsubee U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress which fails to meet the notability requirements for actors. The cited filmography consists of two films currently tagged with a proposed deletion tag because they're clearly not notable (if they exist at all). All links are to self-published web pages. Pichpich (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeanne Jo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist who doesn't quite meet Knowledge's notability requirements. She certainly has been active but there's a definite lack of reliable, in-depth coverage in third-party sources to build an adequate biographical article. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Morey's Piers. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollies Coaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub about a Rollercoaster does not appear to meet WP:N, and lacks context as well. I suggest merging the name into a List of Rides at Morey's Piers, and deleting the article. Zaldax (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
While you're probably right, since the creator is a fairly new editor I wanted to give them a chance to justify inclusion, in the event that I was simply unaware of its notability. Ergo, I decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt, and bring it here instead of PROD-ing it or redirecting it. Zaldax (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (and I have boldly moved to Gemma Barker case per usual naming policies) Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gemma Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fails WP:NNEWS MacAddct1984 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
But the television programme about her is now receiving critical newspaper reviews, which discuss the broader background. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a crime, it fails WP:EVENT and most of its subsections. As a criminal, the subject fails WP:PERP. While an argument can be made that this subject passes WP:GNG on the basis a plethora of two large spikes of tabloid reports, as well as the "documentary" and a few international mentions, I believe the WP:NOTNEWS clause trumps: "Knowledge considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Although one of the victims has "waved her right to anonymity", I have some BLP concerns in the mention of an underage victim of sexual assault. Location (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep A truly bizarre case which has generated a serious amount of press coverage and one hour-long television programme, although a scrappy article at present which could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree, improvements needed not deletion. press coverage and television programme made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable event/case. --Vic49 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - A highly unusual situation which may be indicative, and alarming, of our growing societal reliance on virtual presences and relationships vs. real life. It needs more fleshing out with verified detail and updating as and when required.
  • Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources.Article can be improved. TheStrikeΣagle 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following three relistings The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sreten Ninković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

fails WP:NTRACK national record is not official, has not placed in World Marathon Majors or competed in Olympics. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider his results posted on the all-athletic profile whose link is on the article. While he has not competed in the Olympics or World Marathon Majors, his marathon times were noticeably better than either olympic A or B norms (evidence that lack of participation in the olympics might have been a result of choice, not due to failure); having not placed in the top 10 places in the World Marathon Majors shouldn't disqualify the article as there are numerous articles on wikipedia of marathoners who did not place top 10 WMM. Zastavafan76 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

please list these other marathoners you are referring to? LibStar (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 04:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. He is six times senior national champion / I was however not able to determine whether he was ever placed in the top 40 in the IAAF end-of-the-year list.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • CommentDelete:, per WP:NTRACK. With due respect to Ninković's achievements, he seems to have placed 3rd in the 2002 Belgrade marathon and did not finish at the 2002 finals of the European athletics championships. -- Trevj (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    The considerable number of sources referred to below by Zastavafan76 have caused me to reconsider, but I'm still not sure that Ninković has at least 10 top threes, or other claimed requirement. Maybe he meets WP:GNG, but I've not spent the time putting the sources into a translation site to form an opinion on that. -- Trevj (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clearly does not been NBOOK, as everyone agrees but the author of the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Daisy Chain (historical novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per Knowledge:Notability (books). I added the {{Notability}} tag to the article on July 12, 2012. At that time, I looked on Google but found only a handful of reader reviews (repeated verbatim on several websites). I also started a discussion on the article's Talk page. HairyWombat 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional. Hmm... I have good reason to suspect that this was added by someone getting paid to create Knowledge articles- you might want to look into the editor's other articles as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no independent and reliable sources out there to show notability for this book or its author. I'm also rather suspicious that this is one of many articles put up by an editor that's getting paid to create articles, so an admin might want to check into this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per all comments above (consensus is 100% in favour of deletion so I'm a little puzzled as to why this was relisted, but it never hurts to be 100% clear); I found no reliable sources after an independent search. Ubelowme U 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

AUTHOR OF ARTICLE RESPONDS: Contrary to questions from TokyoGirl and others, I am:

1 Not paid to write any of the articles I wrote

2 I followed Wiki guidelines and submitted this for review and it passed. Why is it now being considered for deletion, after the process has been completed?

3 Historical novels are growing in popularity, as are self-published authors. Several notable authors are self-publishing, as are comedians of their filmed work.

4 I don't feel like the subjective judgment of less than 10 editors, who don't profess to be content experts in this area, is sufficient to delete the work.

5 Additional facts that I want to add to the article: Featured in The Alcalde Magazine, January 2012 Alumni reviews http://alcalde.texasexes.org/

Awarded Deep River Publishing Certificate of Merit http://www.deepriverbooks.com/

In stores among many independent book stores in the hill country including Book Woman. http://www.librarything.com/author/goroserica

Also available in the following Public Library Systems: Brazoria County Buda Burnet County Claud H. Gilmer Memorial DeSoto Harris County Oakalla Pflugerville Community Tawakoni Area Victoria

In less than a year after publication over 1600 copies had been bought or downloaded worldwide. The Daisy Chain is available in France, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Spain, and Italy.

http://www.shelfari.com/books/25416996/The-Daisy-Chain

Thanks for listening. Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 02:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

  • Reply:To answer your concerns:
  1. First off there was reasonable doubt to think that you might be a paid editor. Whether you're aware of it or not, there's a lot of people who pay to have articles added to the Knowledge.
  2. Not every article that is passed through AfC actually passes notability guidelines. I've seen more than one article pass through AfC on sources that are not considered to be reliable and do not show notability. This article is not the first one that would be nominated for deletion despite passing through AfC.
  3. Saying that a novel genre is popular is not a reason to include it on Knowledge. (WP:LIKE) A genre being popular makes it more likely for there to be reliable sources, but that in itself does not guarantee that a specific book will have those sources. A good example of this is that the urban fantasy genre is popular, but even so not every book would receive a lot of notice. Laurell K Hamilton is one of the most popular authors in the genre right now and even some of her books fail notability guidelines because they didn't get enough coverage in reliable sources.
  4. While I don't profess to be the greatest editor on Knowledge, I am knowledgeable about what it takes for something to pass WP:NBOOK. I've saved multiple books from deletion in the past and I've added multiple articles about books to Knowledge. I know where to look for sources and what would be considered a reliable source or not. I'm not the administrator of Knowledge:WikiProject Books or anything, but neither am I a person who has no knowledge of what it takes for an article for a novel to pass notability guidelines. And if I may be so bold, I know more about the qualifications for book notability and reliable sources than you do. This book is not notable.
  5. As far as the sources go, I looked at what you linked. I was unable to find any mention of the book or the author at . As far as the award goes, it's not notable enough to merit keeping the article. Most awards aren't. I'd go so far as to say that out of all of the awards out there, less than 1% are notable enough to where they'd keep an article and bestow notability per Knowledge's guidelines.
  6. Now as far as "amount of books sold, amount of places it's sold in", that actually doesn't give automatic notability either. You can have a book for sale but that doesn't guarantee notability. Selling a lot might help make it easier to find sources, but again, it doesn't guarantee notability. But as far as books go, 1600 isn't a number so astronomical that it'd give notability. Being available in multiple libraries doesn't guarantee notability either. It's not an argument that you could use to keep the article, in other words. Nothing you have written as far as copy availability shows notability. Notability is shown through multiple independent and reliable sources.
Long story short, despite you adding various things to the article and to this discussion, none of them show the slightest bit of notability. Goodreads does not give notability. Amazon definitely doesn't. The award you mentioned doesn't. (A search brings up nearly no coverage of the award.) Being listed on various merchant sites doesn't. None of this shows notability. End of story.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional': I'm going to bring this up with a few editors just to be fair, but offhand I don't really see where this book has any notability that would keep it from being deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Casey, if you have not yet read Knowledge:Notability (books) then you need to do so. It was unfortunate that your article came through Articles for Creation but, as you can read above, the editor who passed it now believes they made a mistake. None of your items make the book notable. Specifically, being noted in The Alcade, an alumni magazine, is a start, but what is needed is, "multiple, non-trivial published works". (Also, the reference you give for this does not mention The Daisy Chain; in fact, I cannot find it mentioned anywhere on this website.) The Deep River Publishing Certificate of Merit is not, "a major literary award". This would be the case even if the company was not a vanity publisher. (The website of the company states that it is not a vanity publisher, yet it requires authors to contribute financially. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then .... Again, the reference you give for this does not mention The Daisy Chain; in fact, I cannot find it mentioned anywhere on this website.) Being stocked in stores or public libraries is irrelevant. Sales of 1600 is high for a self published book but otherwise very low and, anyway, sales do not make a book notable; lots of independent reviews do. If the book has been translated into French, German, Japanese, etc, then this would help notability. However, simply being offered for download in English in foreign countries is irrelevant. (The reference you give for this does not appear to mention France, Germany, etc., so it is unclear which of these is the case.) Hope this helps; the key is Knowledge:Notability (books). HairyWombat 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable source. A piece in the authors alumni mag is not enough. Award is not major. Passing through AFC does not mean the subject is notable, just that the article is a reasonable starting point. I didn't find anything to add to that starting point and no one else has. Falls short of Knowledge:Notability (books). (I was told about this afd on my talk page). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No significant literary coverage or awards. --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pramilla Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have rejected CSD on this one, as I'm really not sure. It is possible that this is a woman who has served as a known example for female education in India. It is also possible that this is a woman who has lived a praiseworthy life, but does not meet the threshold of WP:N. Honestly, I have no idea. I couldn't find any English language sources on the internet, yet there may be sources in Hindi or other Indian languages around. My google-fu for different scripts is greatly lacking though, so I prefer to take this venue Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete The contents are sigmnificant for the reason that rather than resorting to mere lectures or writing of papers, the subject toook it upon herself to present an example. further the fact that it was done in a small town was quite noteable given the enviorment and situation at the time. the impact was noticed by the families of cicvil servants, engineers and others at that time it was also coovered by the media, though the refrences are not traceable now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhishsharma (talk • contribs)
    • Could you give an indication of the extent and kind of the media coverage? Was it newpapers? Magazines? Is there any chance you can still find some of it back somehow? 08:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight (Barry Gibb song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song was cut from the album and was never released by Mr Gibb. I know some unreleased tracks can sometimes become notable in their own right due to press coverage, but simply having never been released is no claim to notability. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kittredge Cherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt that this person meets the notability criteria: most of the references lead to her own website, and I'm not sure whether a couple of mentions in the external sources (one is dated 1988) are enough to establish notability. Besides, the article was created by her own request, so it seems a lot like self-advertising. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Link from Nape is completely legitimate... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: I have refactored the nomination to include the standard AfD templates. The nomination was not transcluded in the daily AfD Log, I will add it now. Please consider this the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty845 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Yes, that's exactly what is said in point #3 of WP:AUTHOR -- I see three major newspaper reviews here, which precisely meets #3, although I'm personally generally willing to accept the NYT as an arbiter of notability. Ubelowme U 21:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Lambda nomination, a review in the LA Times, BAR, NY Times, the other citations, six publications by reputable publishers -- this seems clear-cut to me. I have no problem with a notable author requesting that an article be written about her -- isn't that the best way to make sure it gets done without COI issues? Ubelowme U 21:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Tamerlane Global Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete The references range from directory listing, to local speaking announcement, to mention in a newspaper article about a port, to their IT supplier announcing the beta of their commissioned portal, but nothing individually or in sum that looks strong enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete  I'm seeing the same things that AllyD found.  I also checked with Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com, who has business reports on 360,000 companies, but not Tamerlane.  There is no way to separate the material in this article from puffery.  The company is so new that this is not entirely surprising.  Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp only has the address and phone number.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Iran Futsal's 2nd Division. Consensus to delete following three renominations. Redirected following deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kiyan Isfahan FSC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. ●Mehran ● 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't appear notable but can the nominator please give us some more information regarding why they nominated this article "Notability" isn't enough as we aren't psycic mediums Seasider91 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ●Mehran ● 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - whether or not a league is fully pro is only important when it comes to players notability. Speaking of clubs, we don't have a real guideline, only the essay WP:FOOTYN, and a consensus that everything must pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Evolve or Be Extinct. The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Link Up (Wiley song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NSONG Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Evolve or Be Extinct, the parent album. Coverage for the song seems limited to mentions within reviews for the album (e.g., ). Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and WP:NSONGS suggests that such cases "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."  Gongshow  03:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark Shankland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like this player has a bright future. However, he doesn't yet pass WP:NFOOTY, and although there is some coverage out there I don't think it is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. On balance it is probably too soon for us to have an article on this footballer. — Mr. Stradivarius 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably two early sources appear to be as follows , , , , .Blethering Scot 20:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Satchel's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Local pizza joint. Press limited to local articles about a fire that took place February 2012. Knowledge is not news. Recommend deletion due to lack of established notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. See also the notability guidelines for organizations, which additionally have not been met to establish notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
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) 07:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Disagree with characterization of article cites by User:Jerem43 / Jeremy. Footnotes 2 & 3 are profiles of the restaurant in the local press, thus suggesting sufficient local coverage to demonstrate notability within Gainesville. (They're not just "opening/closing" press release coverage or routine restaurant reviews.) Another of the cites is a Florida tourism website (InsideFlorida.com) which wouldn't support notability by itself, but given its coverage ("Florida"), the inclusion of Satchel's as the only restaurant is supportive of other notability claims. Similarly, articles on the fire are just routine business articles in the absence of preexisting notability, but are supportive of notability that already exists. Footnote 1 is a self-sourced item, but only used to provide basic background fact, as is permissible. --Lquilter (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • A little googling:
      • Lonely Planet: "Two miles east of downtown, this wacky place has the best pizza on Florida’s east coast (and a darn good salad, to boot). ... Skip Satchel’s and you miss Gainesville’s soul." ... "Ranked #1 of 33 things to do in Gainesville by Lonely Planet travellers."
      • high ratings, and LOTS of them, from tripadvisor.com and urbanspoon.com.
So this all appears to go well beyond "routine restaurant reviews" and routine business coverage. --Lquilter (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Granted, but in context of other things that meet notability threshold (the requisite cites), they are supportive. --Lquilter (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What they do is establish the existence of the chain, but not why is is notable. To be truly notable, you need sources that establish its history as a business separate from reviews and local stories about a location of the business. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK it's not a chain but a stand-alone restaurant. Anyway, the local stories (there are lots and lots more than are currently cited) are about way more than a/the "location of the business". We have lots of independent sources about the business and that suffices for notability. Many of the reviews and so forth in various review sites and blogs (there are hundreds of these) are non-trivial and say things like, "Satchel's Pizza (1800 NE 23rd Avenue) is a Gainesville landmark." The "classic" / "landmark" / etc. language is all over the place in articles about this place.
More generally, what we have here is a local restaurant in a good-sized city, by all accounts very popular, routinely described as a "landmark" or with similar language, and with lots of independent press coverage of the travails of its business and the rescue/benefit efforts involved. To me the "landmark" and similar language is what suggests its notability. But if this doesn't do it for you, then I'm wondering if you can give me an example of what would? For instance, Dreamland Bar-B-Que in Tuscaloosa has routinely showed up in best-of lists (like Satchel's Pizza); its business issues (tax problems) were widely covered in the local and regional press (as with the fire for Satchel's), and it was frequently described as a "landmark", "the soul of..." Tuscaloosa, and so forth. I would consider these pretty analogous. --Lquilter (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independent published coverage, in my estimation. It is not our place to judge whether a business is "big enough" or "unique enough," only whether it has been "covered enough" — and this has. Don't worry, we won't run out of electrons, Knowledge is not paper. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (created a redirect to Microsoft Word) (later to Peachtree Software)Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Magic Wand (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Searching with Google, I cannot find any useful sources. The only accounts of this product (or of any of the various claims in the article) I could find all appeared to be WP:PRIMARY, by individuals closely associated with the subject. Msnicki (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: the combination of name and period of relevance makes searching for sources nearly impossible. Still the article is marked as stub and the claim of notability – source base of MS Word – makes me think that we should keep it per WP:IAR until either the claim is properly sourced or debunked. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If that were true, I think we'd be reporting that elsewhere, in articles that get far more scrutiny. From Microsoft Word#Origins and growth: 1981 to 1995: "In 1981, Microsoft hired Charles Simonyi, the primary developer of Bravo, the first GUI word processor, which was developed at Xerox PARC. Simonyi started work on a word processor called Multi-Tool Word and soon hired Richard Brodie, a former Xerox intern, who became the primary software engineer." And from Richard Brodie (programmer)#Microsoft: "Simonyi hired Brodie in 1981 as Microsoft's 77th employee, and a founding member of the Microsoft Application Division. Brodie distinguished himself at Microsoft by creating the first version of Microsoft Word in less than seven months." Msnicki (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the information about possible connection between Word and Magic Wand was added twice to the article: on May 14, 2004 by Rossumcapek and (after being removed) on March 1, 2011 by LesPinter. Effectively, Les Pinter made this claim earlier (also see and ). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe Les Pinter's "presumption" that Magic Wand source ended up in Word. I suspect he just wishes that was true and also, that the story has grown in the retelling. Just like most people here, I'm anonymous and my personal experience isn't helpful except maybe to explain the other part of why I don't believe those claims: I visited Microsoft in late 1981 and met Gates and Simonyi, got a demo from Simonyi of their Word and Multiplan applications and got told the story that Word had been written by an intern they'd hired. The history being reported in the Microsoft Word and Richard Brodie (programmer) articles matches my own memories. Msnicki (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Though I wouldn't trust Microsoft people on this, the story of Les Pinter seems questionable to me too: the Word was developed for both Xenix and DOS (with former being the focus platform at that time IIRC), so using CP/M sources for that matter is weird. It looks more likely that Gates considered Magic Wand for release under Microsoft brand but decided in favor of a completely new product written from scratch. Anyway, I think that both the claim and the stub on this text processor should be kept for historical reasons. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hold on, there. We both agree the source and the claim are completely dubious but you want to keep them anyway? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
See, I'm not convinced that the whole story is fake; in fact I tend to believe that there was some kind of deal between Les Pinter and Gates, and if so, it may be worth mention in History of Microsoft Word once some more reliable source reports this. This article may be kept as a mean of preservation of that data, though I wouldn't insist in that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Pinter made the deal he says. I doubt just his "presumption" that it ended up in Word. Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO the only goal mention this fact is showing the Microsoft's moves towards own text processor (or office suit). Any claim about succession between Magic Wand and Word can't stand WP:NPOV test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about merging into the Microsoft Word article? Merge is always an alternative. Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with merge, though I'm not sure that the sources may be considered reliable for Microsoft Word or History of Microsoft Word (which is a better target IMO): here these sources are primary, while there they are just self-posted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RMIT Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, even though it has existed since 1968 that isn't a reason to keep. almost all the sources provided are primary. even trove confirms limited coverage like it hosted events. the organisation has very little notability outside RMIT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 05:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
the 3rd article is routine coverage of job cuts. Due to Voluntary student unionism in Australa, all university unions in Australia faced cuts.. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Empathetic Logic Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does not meet requirement for notability (multiple independent reliable sources over time). The only citations are of the author's own work - no independent sources present or found. As of this edit, multiple searches for the article title in Scholar (and other databases), or citations of the two cited works, produce no results. Nobody cited these works. Citations #3 is merely an obit which doesn't mention ELA, and #4 merely lists Diebel's book, which makes no mention of ELA. --Lexein (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I couldn't see where this could be merged into, either. -Lexein (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Retain, happy to share how the material links. Currently under review by the National Defense University http://www.ndu.edu for inclusion in the program at the National War College this fall. All materials linking the two are under restriction for dissemination, without prior approval of NDU. Sorry for the translucency, not my call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please produce a) evidence that anyone has cited either of the first two cited works in the academic or scientific communities or b) evidence that anyone has discussed the notion of ELA anywhere. Allusions to pending secrecy-bound government support are prima facie dismissable. Without the requested evidence, there is no basis upon which Knowledge policy and guideline permits inclusion of this article. I hope NDU implements similar standards for inclusion in their course materials vetting process. BTW that use of "translucency" is incorrect; "opaqueness" might be better. --Lexein (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(let's maintain indentation of the discussion) - Lexein
Lexin, totally get it and respect the position. Please email me at and I will provide the requested information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. We redact and tend not to publish private email addresses of individual editors - it's a privacy and identity-validation thing. Better: use Email this user in the left column of User pages.
  2. Please read about reliable sources and verifiability of claims. If no published independent reliable sources wrote anything about ELA or those two papers, then the article is sunk. We cannot accept first-person (author's) word of the validity or notability of a subject - that is established only by independent reliable sources over time.
  3. We do things in public here at WP, especially discussion and sourcing of articles and content within them (there are three exceptions which don't apply here.) If your supporting material or sources are not available for public discussion and evaluation, then Knowledge is most likely not ready for an article about ELA at this time. --Lexein (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(indented so as not to interfere with "keep" or "delete" comments by other editors) - Lexein
  • Note to Lexein: I sent you an email yesterday as requested; I greatly appreciate your efforts in maintaining the highest standards at Knowledge. Since you took the initiative to flag this article for deletion, I would hope that you would take ownership of reviewing the supporting materials I can provide. If you are not comfortable with this option, I would ask that you either a)remove your notice to delete this article, or, b) point me towards someone at Knowledge so that I can share the supporting materials with them for proper disposition of this situation. Thanks so very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not ask you to communicate with me privately, and I will be deleting that email unread, because you have implied that it may contain restricted, secret, or embargoed information to which I have no right. Simply publicly state the independent reliable sources which have discussed or cited your two published papers on ELA. Read WP:42, WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources. This page, right here, is the appropriate venue for discussing the deletion of this article. You are welcome to communicate with anyone you like. See WP:Dispute resolution if you think I'm doing something wrong. --Lexein (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(indented to maintain thread) --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to Lexein:Sorry you felt the need to delete my email without reading it. I have sent an email to your personal email accounts @ Yahoo; hopefully you will take the time to read those civil notes as I seek to find some resolution. In an effort of 'Transparency' I use my real name @ WP, versus hiding behind a cryptic user ID. Just sayin'. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
To reiterate: Independent reliable sources which are not available to the public in one form or another are generally unacceptable, indicating premature article creation. I don't know how else to say it.
Anybody else care to weigh in here? I mean, seriously, wut? --Lexein (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to Lexein: Since you have avoided all attempts on my part to provide the information you seek, I have filed for Dispute Mediation to seek a proper disposition of this issue. Further, since you have not engaged in a productive dialog, I'd like to remove the notice "Article for Deletion' until official mediation helps us resolve our differences. Out of respect for the Mediation process, please do not re-post the notice. Thank you again for all your help in making WP the preeminent resource on the web. Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The WP:AFD notice language is clear: do not remove the notice until the WP:AFD is closed by a third party. The WP:Requests for mediation/Empathetic Logic Analysis, of which you failed to notify me, was rejected. Deal with that first - the AfD remains open for other editors to comment, and yet another editor to close. If anyone supports keeping, let them comment here, and let consensus work.
I have repeatedly requested that you produce published independent reliable sources here, or in the article, in public per Knowledge RS guideline or V policy. If you produce them here, or in the article, for discussion, the matter might quickly end. Your fight is not with me. Remember, another user PRODed the article, and yet another user agreed (above) with deletion. --Lexein (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) (edited)
(please maintain thread indentation. This *Note to Lexein business is unnecessary.) --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to Lexein: This has been a great learning experience and I appreciate you taking me on this journey of discovery. Anyway, I did refile for mediation and contacted the Mediator User:AGK directly in hope of expediting the process. I did spend some time reviewing the guidelines for Arbitration, making note of the subject of Sensitive Materials, which I think might be the issue at play. More specifically, the information I have offered to you, as a veteran editor, is sensitive in nature. Unfortunately, despite all my attempts at providing you with this information vie email (on WP and at your three personal email accounts on Yahoo), you have ignored my offers. Hence, I do not have an issue with you; I do have issue in the manner in which you have approached editing my contribution. Regardless, I'll leave it to the Mediator, and if needed, the Arbitrator, to resolve our different POVs. Thanks again for everything and have a great weekend! --ReismanS (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(please maintain thread indentation. Please read WP:DISCUSSION) --Lexein (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to Lexein: I have emailed the Mediation Committee for their input. On the Note to Lexien issue, I tend to be a bit more formal in my communications, ('Dear', 'Please', 'Thank You', 'Regards'), so, while unnecessary for some, I find it leads to a more civil dialog. Have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Blaring, deliberate, repeated bolding and username calling-out is not particularly WP:CIVIL. Please see WP:DISCUSSION. See also, other AfD discussions, for examples of considerate behavior. I'm not making this stuff up - see for yourself. --Lexein (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(please maintain thread indentation.)--Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Lexein. Thank you for pointing me to WP:CIVIL, it was helpful. In reading the article, I did not find mention of 'repeated bolding' or 'username calling-out', I may have missed it, if so, sorry about that. I did enjoy the article WP:Assume_good_faith as I have been assuming your motivations are for the betterment of WP. Thanks again for sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReismanS (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(please maintain thread indentation.)--Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This is still an AfD discussion page, and the left margin is, by general practice, reserved for new comments by arriving editors responding to the AfD. And maintaining comment threading indentation (either continually indenting more, or maintaining the current level with a blank line between) is a generally agreed-upon Talk page practice, not invented by me. This page is not owned by any particular user, but I support the generally agreed-upon practice. Careful reading will show that I have not bitten anyone. --Lexein (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--ReismanS (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per Hairhorn. There are no hits in the expected places (books, scholar), as has been noted. Also, the references are padded. The term doesn't appear in most of the sources cited.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Going by the argument of ReismanS if the content is not meant to be distributed then it might not be a good idea to place in Knowledge. You might be breaching some secrecy laws by placing the material here. Without reliable references the material might br regarded as a hoax. I don't see a win/sin situation unless the material is marked by the college to be free to distribute - (Contribs • Talk) 00:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Squirrel Model Airplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This model airplane does not appear notable. Googling with the term squirrel "model airplane" on Google Books, News, and News archives retrieves only what appear to be false positives. (I may be wrong on this one. There were so many hits, especially on Google Books, that I skimmed through the results rather than scrutinizing each one as I usually do. If I've missed something, just let me know and I'll happily consider withdrawing. However, considering the nature of the topic, I doubt if any reliable sources might exist.) CtP (t • c) 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

-good idea it could be Squirrel (model aircraft). It's more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siteware (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to make it more like this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Triggertrap

And show the different variations. I'll list media mentions and write-ups too.

I've got lots to figure out here but I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siteware (talk • contribs) 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The "Flying high" article mentioned above by Uncle G notes coverage of the Squirrel in various aviation magazines. It's starting to look more notable, although we'll need to judge first-hand how substantial the coverage is. CtP (t • c) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I just performed a Google search using the same criteria as a previous entry. The Squirrel rubber band powered plane came up as entry 2 - 10 on the first page. This design and it's manufacturing process look like an interesting project and small business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.30.54 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but as for any significant coverage? That's what would really contribute to notability. CtP (t • c) 14:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:JUSTAVOTE. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus that stresses the notability of the subject (a major character in a landmark work of Chinese literature) and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. However, the article is in dire need of additional references, and the continued lack of references may cause this article to face a future deletion debate. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Zhu Bajie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Article lacks multiple reliable third party independent sources, as set but in WP:GNG. Notability cannot be met without sufficient citations." "Referencing is not optional" Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Highly notable, but it does need references. I would volunteer to do this, with the caveat that it may take a couple weeks to get to it. Homunculus (duihua) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
They ARE. See below too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The point is that these major characters are obviously notable according to the strictest interpretations of Knowledge guidelines. There is infinitesimal probability that there is not a ton of reliable sources on them. A Chinese person pressed for time might not be able to immediately put their hands on RS's in Chinese for Romeo or Count Dracula, say not knowing the usual translation into Chinese of these names. That doesn't mean that it is not a good argument to say (& prove) that these are such important literary characters that anyone with any familiarity with "Western" culture would know them. Deleting these would be like deleting an article on a chemical element for insufficient sources.John Z (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

London Irish Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can find no news for this organization since 2007 and very little prior to that. I proposed deletion as this group probably never obtained the level of notability. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The most recent concert I've been able to trace on Google was in 2008. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm reluctantly heading towards a delete !vote here. They appear to be no longer active. Their web domain has expired and their Facebook page is stale. If, as the article claims, they premiered significant Irish works in their lifetime, then they could merit coverage, but we would need independent sources to verify this. --Deskford (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I sympathise with that response. I feel that there's no hurry to delete a page providing some reference information which may not have been compiled in other secondary/tertiary sources. So personally I'd be more inclined towards a tentative keep !vote. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Lol, when I tried to verify per WP:BAND I stumbled on Music in London (2010), which acknowledges the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Knowledge or other free sources online. Apparently, just a couple of years out of date... —MistyMorn (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete  Here is a picture of the orchestra.  The key words in the article seem to be "provide a forum for young musicians".  The one reference in the article states that the "composer in residence" from 2005-7 graduated with a bachelor's degree in 2009 (although the composer seems to be at least as notable as the orchestra).  This source is a dedicated but brief article.  This is a press release, although from the government it is reliable.  Here is a couple of paragraphs and list of six members.  Here is a brief mention.  This Feb 2009 source expected that there would be a concert in April 2009.  I looked at merging to London#Music but the material doesn't fit there.  Probably this topic needs a userfy to merge to a new List of <something>, but meanwhile the current article has zero citations.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Alan Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable as, after considerable effort to find something, there is essentially limited to no coverage of the subject. Of the few sources that do exist, even fewer, if not all, are in some manner unreliable, if not completely non-useful resources (given the lack of impartiality and (excessive) bias). The existence of this may be for a promotional (or some such) purpose(s), and the page history may suggest potential editorial bias as well. Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete I found some books on Amazon, but nothing via Google scholar. Nothing in EBSCO either. Not notable enough due to lack of independent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Also, you are right, lot's of editing done to promote subject, didn't help notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could finds cites on Google scholar to give an h-index of 4 but, of course, this is nowhere enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment: I think H-indices and other bibliometrics shouldn't by themselves should not be indicators of notability or the "worth" of anyone who publishes; ideally, literature should be weighed, not merely counted, as expressed by some ad hoc ratio or other number. In the event that H-indices are at all considered, they should be taken for what they're worth as well as with a grain of salt. Hopefully, this makes some sense; I know this is a poorly written comment. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We use citation counts and h-indexes the other way around: if they are high, then that constitutes good evidence of notability. I they are low, however, that is only absence of evidence for notability, not proof of non-notability. So if I translate Xxanthippe's comment correctly (and note that it wasn't a !vote), it says that the citation record for Miller does not provide evidence that he satisfies PROF#1. Nothing more. After all, he might simply meet WP:GNG. Of course, up till now, we have no evidence of notability (and logically speaking, we cannot have evidence of non-notability...). Hope this doesn't obfuscate even more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for explaining the H-index in the context of Knowledge. I mightn't have formulated my thoughts too clearly, haha; but, as one who works with literature and research, now and then, even high H-indices aren't necessarily good evidence of notability. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I like the basic idea behind the H-index, but my feeling is that it overweights numbers of papers relative to citation numbers. Someone with even one paper > 1000 citations is probably guaranteed notable. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Every number has to be taken in its context. As I said above, a low index is not proof of non-notability. In you hypothetical example, someone with an h-indew of 1 can still be notable. But it doesn't work the other way around: a high index is proof of notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Miller seems to be a useful expert on unusual crops for small farmers (see the link to permaculture interview) altho he clearly is in it for the consulting money, and he may possibly be useful to people interested in mysticism, biodynamics, psychedelics, etc. But he is a total kook in his garbled comments on science (such as audible holographic effects from the genetic sequences on chromosomes). He is most definitely NOT a biophysicist, and I am removing that category from the page. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks. I was rather baffled as to why he was categorised as a biophysicist unless the term is used incredibly loosely. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fringe researchers such as he appears to be need high-quality mainstream sourcing in order to provide an adequately neutral overview of their contributions, and no good sources are visible here such as (if they existed) would let him pass WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that he should even be evaluated by WP:PROF (the article portrays him as an academic but gives no evidence that he actually is one) but appears to fall far short of that bar too. Finally, more as a comment: I'm a little surprised that this was relisted. Three delete opinions (over that of the nominator) with some discussion but no dissent seems pretty clear to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Incubate. Moved to Knowledge:Article Incubator/Saving Mr. Banks Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Saving Mr. Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a movie "tentatively scheduled for a release in 2014, with filming slated to start September 2012" (sic). Seems problematic in terms of WP:CRYSTAL. At the very least WP:TOOSOON. BenTels (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFF. However, and in respect to the governing policy toward future events, we definitely have enough sourcability so that this can be mentioned in the various articles of the film's director and major cast, even if not meriting a separate article quite yet. Schmidt, 00:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My only reason to disagree with the deletion is that filming will begin in a month; do movies in production deserve an article? User:patchallel 1842, 7 August 2012
    • Please refer to WP:NFF, the guideline which deals with projects that have not yet begun actually filming, and to WP:NYF, an essay which addesses that pre-filming projects usually do not merit separate articles, although occasional exceptions are allowed if agreed to by consensus... but only when showing far more persistant and in-depth coverage. I will grant that WP:ATD allows incubation for cases where principle filming is imminent, and I am not adverse to it being placed there, out of article space, for collaborative editing and expansion while it awaits its due time. Schmidt, 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My apologies and thanks to all for the education on policies; I will follow them more closely in the future. What is the next step? User:patchallel 0646, 8 August 2012
        • We wait out the 7 days (usually). You "might" opine for an Incubation and I would support such action... whatever best serves the project. Schmidt, 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to vote for incubation, as filming is "due" in a matter of weeks but will, of course, abide by the decision of the editors. User:patchallel 15:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus that the sourcing and POV of this article make it unfit for inclusion in the project. There is less of a consensus that this is a non-notable subject, so if anyone wants to have the article restored, please write a userspace draft and propose via WP:DRV that it be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically this is a list of Pakistani allegations against India accusing India of supporting terrorism. The majority of the article is a synthesis with some OR thrown into the mix. There is nothing here which cannot be added to the State sponsored terrorism article or to the article on RAW. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: violates???, shamelessly covering the terrorism. In the existence of most reliable sources, tagging the article for deletion?, is that legitimate?, perhaps yes because all looks yellow to a jaundiced eye, but the world is not blind. Justice007 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am yet to see a reliable source, much less "most reliable sources". Such flowery words are almost all that was produced in the talk page in favour of keeping the POV content which others were trying to remove.Suraj T 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
@Justice...I very strongly suggest you mind and censor your language.Let your inner thoughts remain inside. Be somewhat civil while in a discussion. TheStrikeΣagle 14:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:FORK. The article contains cherry picked Quotes and allegations many of them from WP:SPS and questionable sources and merged together with WP:SYNTHESIS for obvious anti-India POV pushing. Moreover statements of allegations are being pushed as proof. --DBigXray 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing has been proven to be SPS, synthesis or OR in the article. This topic is highly notable and includes statements by heads of state (Presidents, Prime Ministers), politicians, academics on the issue. There are a variety of sources available that make this topic important, the ones currently used on the article are just a tip of the iceberg. This deletion discussion is simply a result of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a poor attempt to whitewash content when users couldn't get to enforce their POV on the article. The only thing that is shameless here is this AFD being initiated by a user who has a clear conflict of interest. Mar4d (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll also note that the article was in a far different shape and had other reliably sourced content too which was removed by the users claiming to be enforcing NPOV (for example, Edolphus Towns statement was removed, Wikileaks allegations by the United Arab Emirates were removed and an incident on Indian Army trained militants infiltrating Azad Kashmir was removed, a quote detailing RAW activities in Balochistan by Mushahid Hussain Sayed was removed simply on lame summaries) along with other things, making the current article a jumbled mess without a head or tail. Furthermore, the article is part of a series of country terrorism articles eg. United States and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism, Sri Lanka and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism etc. Why should there be double standards here? Mar4d (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looked great when the Northern alliance were in there being accused of terrorism with absolutely no source at all. I would recommend anyone voting in this AFD to take a look at the talk page of the article, ] this section in particular is quite good. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with DS here. I have been trying to improve the article for a few days now and in my opinion, has very little to no scope for improvement other than removal of 90% of the content which is either original research or misrepresented content woven to allege India of supporting terrorism. The remaining content would be a bunch of unfounded allegations by Pakistan supported by self published sources. A further websearch has revealed nothing but further allegations by Pakistan from unreliable sources. Suraj T 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So heads of state, politicians, academic sources, governments, they are all "unreliable"? Wow. Just wow. Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow indeed. I am tired of your counter arguments citing lame sources for your claims, like for example, a thesis by a random student or a self published book to name a couple. The talk page of the article clearly shows that editors have been repeatedly asking you to bring up credible sources for "heads of state, politicians, academic sources, governments" alleging India of terrorism without success.Suraj T 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP - Yes, I concur with what Suraj88, DBigXray above me have already said, it iniquitously violates WP:SOAP, WP:COAT and perhaps WP:NOTCASE.

    Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

    This article is actually imputing terrorism to a whole nation, even though NO concrete evidence (only fabricated claims) has been provided on international podium to make India seem liable for "sponsoring-terrorism". This article is itself a wicked violation of WP:NPOV. An article on the subject of this magnitude based on the unsubstantiated, speculative, tenuous reports or unfounded, propagandist allegations by unreliable, biased sources is not what should be encouraged. Also I don't think the article meets WP:GNG. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

    Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation. Minor news stories are all examples of coverage but they do not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Thank you. Mrt3366 08:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - The article has a lot of accusations and less facts --sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Being a crystal clear violation of WP:FORK, WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, and a case of cherry picking, this article seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The only argument the article creator has presented in WP:WAX, which is, like always, eligible to be discounted. Like most other similar articles in this topic, the purpose of the article is evidently to advance a position. The article is full of WP:SPSs, and what makes it worse is that they have been used to support highly controversial allegations. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: even after the much blanking and renaming , the article still has reliable sources and is a notable topic and should not be deleted just because Indian editors want it to be censored. This is against wikipedia policy and I'll like to remind everyone that consensus does not override policy. The burden for establishing notability is cleared, and and POV related issues should be dealt with on the talkpage; AFD is not for clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    TG, a clarification. "Consensus does not override policy" makes no sense because consensus is the main decision making policy on Knowledge. It is through consensus that editors will decide here whether this article satisfies Knowledge's notability requirements or whether it is mere synthesis and OR. --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but consensus is not a ballot vote, which I suspect may be happening here. In short, the closing admin should weigh up the pros and cons. There are clearly enough sources available that lend notability and credibility of this topic. Knowledge is not truth (Knowledge:Verifiability, not truth) remember. If there are sources which say something, we put them forward. I'm afraid all of the voters here demonstrate an I-don't-like-it attitude to the article. Mar4d (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that consensus is policy (and therefore there is no question of anything else deciding an AfD). TG might want to refactor his !vote because it doesn't make sense the way it is written. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Instead of refactoring, I'll clarify my comment further as I still intend to stand by it.. just that you didn't get the intended meaning. Yes, policy is dictated by consensus (but unlike this one... a consensus among the general community which this consensus can not override). Hope it is clearer now. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Better because you no longer say that consensus cannot override policy (consensus is, after all, our key policy!) But, to be honest, your clarification, assuming I'm getting the intended meaning this time, is vague and not very useful. For example, which particular consensus among the general community are the delete !votes trying to override? --regentspark (comment) 02:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • COMMENT This, more or less, is what the article ought to look like. Just for outsiders who come to this AfD and see the current article (which is a mess), how substantial content has been removed from the original version to the current version, due to sensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT camp. Mar4d (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I notice you have not removed three SPS sources from it. The first three refs are SPS. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Insensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT CAMP"? All the content that was removed was gross POV violations and classic examples of WP:SYNTH. This comment and comments like "Indian editors want it to be censored" made by Topgun above for example exhibit the nationalist POV pushing mentality that has motivated the addition of content. AFAIK, all content that was removed was explained atleast through informative edit summaries to make such claims moot. Suraj T 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Edolphus Town's entire quote was removed because it was "undue" and his speech was offensive to some user's sentiments? Azad Kashmir section was removed because it's just "one report", How Indian officials or Gov of India can be connected to it is beyond me" . UAE section was removed because.... oh dear, it's "coatrack". Entire Bangladesh section was removed because one user thinks that it "has no specific mention of terrorism", and then when you open the talk page... you find zero (zilch, nada, nil) discussion. An entire quote by senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed is deleted because of another chap who thinks it is "inessential, lengthy" . Oh, and now we come to the big fish. An entire section of allegations gets deleted because another of our buddies has this irritating habit of labeling everything WP:SPS without checking. You ask him repeatedly to take it to the RSN thread. He does, and it is discovered that the text in question is a work of the Federation of American Scientists, by John E. Pike and Steven Aftergood (so much for SPS). Yes, way to go for your "informative edit summaries to make such claims moot". Applause for the self-proclaimed NPOV-enforcers of this article. Mar4d (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please provide the source from the Federation of American Scientists so you can replace the SPS you used. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d, I guess you just reinforced my point further. Did you even try to understand what those edit summaries you quoted above were trying to inform? You seem to be disagreeing with everything that intends to remove content from the article regardless of rationale.Suraj T 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Mar4d (talk) - You are constantly (intentionally or not) violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL.
If you could check your way of expressing your colossal spite toward others who disagree with you, I would be grateful. But the allegations like
  • "content have been removed ...due to sensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT camp".
  • "Edolphus Town's entire quote was removed because it was "undue" and his speech was offensive to some user's sentiments"
  • "Applause for the self-proclaimed NPOV-enforcers of this article."
    • are gratuitous.
    Now frankly, if all you can do here is accuse others of the things they didn't actually do, then it's better that you report other users on suitable pages and leave this thread alone, you've already voted, commented, responded, etc. haven't you?

    Nobody is being barred from checking or commenting on the talk page of this article. Please don't assume stuff beforehand. Mrt3366 09:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Really?

    Do you mean India has been irrefutably confirmed to be "harboring or harnessing terrorism"? If so, then where, by whom, and how can you impute that to a whole nation based on nothing more than some form of rumors?
    Is your claim is substantiated or validated by any conclusive investigation by any foreign government/department that shows Indian government itself is using terrorism against other countries?
    No.
    Only rumors and unfounded allegations juxtaposed with fabricated assertions (and other conspiracy theories) by Pakistani Leaders. Like Surajt88 said above, "Such flowery words are almost all that was produced in the talk page in favour of keeping the POV content". And we say BLP-violation is unacceptable. Mrt3366 09:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete. Agree with Bearian as to SOAP/FORK. Language also NPOV and incidents cherry-picked, allegations assumed as fact. Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka does not comprise state-sponsored terrorism. There are other objectionable cases also. AshLin (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    Really? Please show us these "reliable sources" which say India is a state sponsor of terrorism? The article is full of SPS, it used opinions as facts, it relies on WP:SYNTH, not one single fact is in the article, it is all one big long list of allegations form Pakistan. Perhaps a rename to Allegations of Indian state sponsored terrorism by their old foe Pakistan, which is basically what the article is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • From the above comment by Crown Prince, its clear that he is did not see the talk page of the article. The sources that few editors are calling reliable, in reality are Self published sources and the article is a list of allegations/claims from poor sources with combined together with WP:SYNTHESIS for obvious POV pushing. Concerns are genuine and one needs to WP:HEAR. --DBigXray 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    @Crown Prince, although the typical " KEEP blah.. blah.. has reliable sources blah.. blah.. is notable blah.. blah..~~~~" (also demonstrated by SMS above) might be relevant in a few Afds, in this context, gives the impression that you did not bother to read the concerns raised at the talk page or even previous comments in this page for that matter. The matter of the article having reliable sources or even notability has been repeatedly refuted both here and the talk page and IMHO, your !vote (and SMS's) adds nothing new to this discussion.
    And as a side note, DS's Allegations of Indian state sponsored terrorism by their old foe Pakistan seems to be the perfect title for this article. I am considering changing my !vote to move the article to this title. Suraj T 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Just allegations by Pakistan, where? Some people are overlooking other sections of the article (not to forget ones that have already been deleted for no reason). Mar4d p(talk) 05:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Just deleted for no reason, where? Some people are overlooking the rationales provided in the talk page (not to forget ones that have already been given here). Suraj T 07:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are abundant of reliable sources which discuss this subject (, , , , , , , , , , , , , ).i.e. India's support to militant groups involved in violence and terrorism related activities. Besides continued editing of the article after it was nominated for deletion just endorses that it is a content issue, which obviously cannot be resolved by deletion. --SMS 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Out of the references you have provided, (no page number), (allegations by a Pakistani politician), (India and Nepal accuse each other of indifference, later collaborate against Maoists, ISI; not good enough for state sponsored terrorism), (accusations of espionage not terrorism), (an isolated case of two arms smugglers claiming allegiance to R&AW, isn't good enough for state sponsored terrorism), (Kalpaz is same as Gyan a known problematic publisher), (the author is representing an allegation, "are said to be..." ) cannot be used as reliable sources on this subject.
    The sources , , , , , are about Indian/R&AW involvement with the LTTE. While these sources look reliable, there is no point in bloating a whole article with SPSs and allegations, violating a dozen wikipedia policies in the process, when the content on LTTE could just as easily be placed here and here. Your final source () describes accusations by Pakistan (not good enough again) and Indian sponsored blasts in Sialkot. It looks alright on a cursory glance, however it should be subject to same kind of scrutiny as other sources have been subject to, on the talk page. And this source alone still does not validate the existence of a separate article with SOAPish content. Regards. Correct Knowledge 00:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • See, the fact of matter always has been that this article is about an extremely sensitive and derogatory claim against a whole Nation which is backed only by some form of unfounded allegation or hypothesis by Pakistani leaders and media.
    No Head of state or National political party or Intelligence agencies or renown counter-terrorism organization of any foreign country has ever officially (i.e. on international podium like UN or any Summits) condemned India for sponsoring terrorism. Yes, it's true Pakistani leaders have always alleged many radical things regarding India, but never supported their lofty allegations up with any credible or tangible proof on any international platform.
    This whole article is built on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

    Knowledge is not a means for disseminating libelous accusations, propaganda of any kind, be it commercial, political, religious, national, or otherwise. Knowledge is not a soap box. Mrt3366 08:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    @SMS, please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Just because a multitude of websites turned up when "India" and "terrorism" were included in a google search, it does not not mean that India supports terrorism. Not one reliable source in the huge string of links you provided, establishes Indian government support to terrorism factually. What is it with you guys and allegations? Anybody can allege anybody. The fact that a Pakistani leader is the alleger does not automatically prove that the alleged did the alleged crime. Independent investigations have to be performed and the results have to be published in an international arena. Which in this case, has not been done. And no Pakistani sources please. Pakistani media has reported false information and apologised many times has no credibility internationally IMO and for this case where international media has not established india's link to terrorism, use of Pakistani sources cannot be warranted. Suraj T 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Took you ages? You have registered your account 20 days ago and have made 14 edits in total (not that date of registration and edit count are taken into consideration for a comment to be valid). You have made one edit on July 25 and resumed editing the next day this afd was opened. I don't know about others, but I have strong suspicions of foulplay here.
    And what do you mean by "a case of censorship by people of that particular country we must move forward"? I seriously hope it is not an Ad hominem attack.
    As for the presence of reliable sources in the article, just the presence of sources from BBC or NYT does not warrant its inclusion. What has to be analyzed is whether the stuff included is within the scope of the article. If the article documented the sponsorship of terrorism by India supported by reliable independent sources, accusations by Pakistan will have a place in the article. But this is not the case here. Though reliable sources are provided, they "do not document terrorism of India as fact". All of them "document trivial mentions of allegations by Pakistan". The whole article is a list of allegations made by Pakistan over the years with no scope for further improvement and hence has no place in Knowledge. Suraj T 04:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    by certain Indian editors - how do you know they are from India? And what has that got to do with this AfD? Does it make their assertions less true?

    Nationality has nothing to do with it. Do not assume bad faith. Mrt3366 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    And another one who can't tell the difference between state sponsored terrorism and state terrorism. These are entirely different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's a good point. However, the article contains a number of academic sources that discuss either India's involvement or the possibility of India's involvement in the LTTE struggle. There are also some good sources on Burma. I don't really like these sorts of articles (are the Chin and Kachin rebels freedom fighters or terrorists, what about the LTTE, these sorts of questions are difficult to answer). But I can't think of other ways to title this article and it does seem that Knowledge supports articles of this sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)
    • @RegentsPark (talk) - I don't understand what your point actually is. Are you saying that even though the article is a "POV mess" it should be kept? Doesn't it sound perilously close to what we know as I SIMPLY LIKE IT?
      There have not been any credible evidence (i.e. reliable sources which go beyond the realm of "claims") for alleging India of "sponsoring terrorism".

      "beyond allegations" (Sri Lanka) - wow, did you even care to read talk page?

    State-sponsored terrorism ≠ State terrorism.

    As a side note, How one could be able to neutrally stigmatize a whole nation basing upon poxy conjectures, lofty fabrication and unfounded conspiracy theories, is beyond me ! Mrt3366 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    You know there is a difference between the "whole nation" and the "state". Also, for you they might be theories but wikipedia is not censored. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But the article is in effect blemishing the whole structure of Indian government when it alleges India sponsors terrorism. But yeah, there is a difference like there is a difference between conjectures and facts. Mrt3366 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Please note that India withdrew support for the LTTE long before it was designated a terrorist organisation. (See Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Proscription as a terrorist group) Infact India was the first to designate it a terrorist organisation. As such half of the Sri Lanka section on LTTE has to be removed. Hence, the entire Sri Lanka section, apart from the one sentence where the Sri Lankan Prime minister "alleges" of terrorist camps in India, is full of Pakistani allegations which can be moved as a subsection under Pakistani allegations. The same goes for the section on Burma which has to be removed because it mentions support to rebels in Burma as terrorist activities. A good example for WP:SYNTH. (See Talk:India and state sponsored terrorism#Section on Burma)
    And the article cannot be rewritten neutrally. If you tried, the entire article would contain nothing but the lead sentence with no scope for further expansion. Also please see the last few edits before the article was fully protected. This is what the article would look like if you tried to reorder the content to its appropriate sections and removed stuff that didn't mention anything about terrorism and kept everything else. As can be seen, it is one big list of Pakistani allegations. And as far as allegations go, its veracity can be understood by anyone who knows atleast something about Pakistan's stance on India.
    As an example, North Korea alleges US of terrorism on a daily basis. You can't have an article on "US and state sponsored terrorism" and just list all the allegations North Korea has ever made. If you can't find other sources establishing US involvement in terrorism, no matter how hard you try to rewrite the article neutrally, you would fail.Suraj T 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    RP, the Kachin rebels were fighting against the military junta, they not usually called a terrorist group as they were fighting against state terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment This article is split from the top level article on State-sponsored terrorism. As per the summary style of writing articles, split is only recommended after consideration has been given to:
      • Size of the article — ☒N the section on India in State-sponsored terrorism is just two lines long. It does not warrant a new article.
      • Notability issues — ☒N was this discussed?
      • Neutrality issues — ☒N this has been pointed out numerous times in the discussion and in the talk page.
    I suggest that this article be deleted and the editors here shift to the section on India in State-sponsored terrorism. Once that section is expanded, the POV issues are dealt with and the editors still feel that a broader coverage of the topic is required, they are free create a new article. Correct Knowledge 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Emerging Materials Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    New journal, too young to have established notability, article creation premature. No independent sources, not indexed in any major selective database: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Surface Innovations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    New journal, too young to have established notability, article creation premature. As far as I can see, not a single article has been published yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any major selective database: does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as NC, but then as a regular editor I'm going to redirect it because it contains no sources at all and claims no notability - it's just a plot. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Princess Iron Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Per the recent redirects of Fake Sun Wukong and Bai Gu Jing. Article "lacks independent third party sources, as per WP:GNG." Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but it's currently painfully unWikified and looks like a high school fankid wrote it. Also (key question): where are the sources? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yup. WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please elaborate as to why its notable. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Amina Kaddur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Fails WP:ENT: minor model. Per FMD, her career consists of two magazine covers, and the depth of coverage amounts to one sentence in Vogue and her name being mentioned in Araba.com, clearly falling short of the significant coverage guideline.  Mbinebri  12:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    List of fictional reptiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Ill-defined list, necessarily incomplete and never will be. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment - Is this meant to be a dab page? Is it a superlist of other lists that links them together? Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: I don't know if it's meant to be a disambiguation page; it makes no such claim. It may be an attempt at a superlist, but it also lists animals itself without further explanation. Whether it is or not, the topic is unmanageably ill-defined ("well-referenced examples of reptiles in literature, film, television, comics, animation, video games and mythology, organized by species" -- what is that?) and therefore the list or strata of lists will never be verifiably complete or correct. -- BenTels (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Extra comment: The thought occurs that the author might have been aiming for a list of all fictional reptiles that are notable enough to qualify for their own articles. If that is the case, I simply don't see the point of this list, as it is a duplication of category:Fictional reptiles. -- BenTels (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment/reply Ehh, I was attempting to, like stated above, be a sort of disambiguation page to list the various fictional-reptile lists but... I guess it didn't come out as good as I'd hoped. In any case it could very easily be reworked to be more like a disambiguation page if that is the consensus we reach, but I'm not sure where to place the "other" reptiles. (many of the already-existing articles such as List of fictional snakes are a bit on the short-side as it is. Even if you were to consolidate every single sub article into this one list, the size would probably not exceed more than a few ten thousand kb. Again, I don't mind deletion, reworking, merging, redirecting or anything else; I'd just like a community consensus on the best course of action. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    That there's also a category is not a valid deletion argument; see WP:NOTDUP. Lists and categories are complementary navigation and organization tools. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: I didn't say it was a deletion argument; I said that if it is just a listing of articles, I don't see the point. It adds nothing to the category except extra work to keep the list in synch with the category.
        The reason that I started the deletion debate is that I don't understand the criteria for inclusion in the list and feel that the criterion as stated is so indefinite that it makes it impossible to judge whether the list is complete or correct. For instance, why is Aladar (from Dinosaur) not on the list? An oversight? A choice? I cannot tell. What about the dragon slain by Saint George? What about the Loch Ness Monster? How about I-forget-his-name, the wise dragon from the He-Man cartoons? Or Nagini from Harry Potter? Or the Basilisk? What about Terry Pratchett's swamp dragons (occur in many of his books)? I can't tell whether they should be on the list from the stated criterion. -- BenTels (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment – I see the page as an aid to navigation, like so many other list articles (e.g. List of abstract algebra topics, List of magical weapons, List of speakers in Plato's dialogues). Even though required by our notability guidelines (see WP:LISTN) the "topic" of such lists is usually not notable in the way defined there. If there were reliable sources discussing, in some general sense, speakers in Plato's dialogues, then we should not have a standalone list but an article on Speakers in Plato's dialogues which then, after a lead and some sections presenting the viewpoints found in these reliable sources, might have a section listing such speakers. Personally I think that such pages should be judged on whether they are actually useful for navigation. I greatly regret the demise, for example, of the former List of flags by design, which I found extremely useful for identifying a flag I had spotted and did not recognize. In this specific case it is not immediately obvious that the purpose will not be equally served by appropriate categorization (see Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Knowledge:Categories versus lists).  --Lambiam 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Since there seem to be lists hierarchically below this one, this might be better as "index of fictional reptiles." Just a reminder that lists/categories being duplicative is not a reason to delete. OSborn contribs. 00:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep useful navigation aide, can be fixed by being sourced or unsourceable entries trimmed. c.f. List of fictional swords and its history. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      Per WP:SAL, you need sources to keep this article, otherwise your recommandation is not policy-based. Also WP:otherstuffexists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      WP:SAL is a guideline, not policy. Could you point out the relevant paragraphs in WP:SAL and explain in what respect this article fails them?  --Lambiam 09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      I say "policy-based" just to avoid the longer "policy or guideline-based". Also, you just have to read the second paragraph of WP:SAL to find what you're asking for: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Knowledge's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Knowledge is not, as well as notability guidelines." In what respect the article fails that ? Even Jclemens admits it is not sourced.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      But is the information unverifiable? Is the fictionality of any of the creatures listed likely to be challenged? Or is the classification in general disputed, such as that Godzilla might actually not be a mutant dinosaur but a giant ground squirrel? Lack of sources is not by itself a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      Uhm, yes, the information is unverifiable. That's rather my point: the entry criteria for the list are not sufficiently clear to allow for verification of the contents of the list. -- BenTels (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      The information is verifiable to the primary sources provided, even if no inline citations are given (The primary work listed can be interpreted as a citation of the source itself). Please note in no way that this endorses or opposed the retainment of this list, just that it was a facility to say it is unverifiable. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      The information is verifiable in the sense that one can confirm or deny that "X is a fictitious reptile". It is not verifiable with regards to the question of whether or not X belongs on the list, since the description of the list does not yield a simple yes/no criterion. Case in point: the Holy Egyptian Alligators as depicted in the Asterix comics and cartoons. Should they be on or not? They are certainly not notable a la Knowledge, but most certainly well-referenced as characters. -- BenTels (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
      WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      That's a facile and dismissive response. ITSUSEFUL ≠ "usefulness is irrelevant in deciding whether to keep lists that are maintained for their organizational and navigational utility." OTHERSTUFF ≠ "meaningful comparisons shall not be made even if they are relevant to the issues raised." postdlf (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep as valid navigational index per WP:LISTPURP, and as complementary to Category:Fictional reptiles per WP:CLN. The claims are wholly without merit that the contents of this list are unverifiable, as the inclusion criteria is simply being 1) a fictional character, that is 2) a reptile or reptilian. Complaints about uncertain inclusion seem to rest upon the equivocation of fictional with legendary or mythical (a meaningful distinction we maintain elsewhere; "fictional" does not simply mean "does not exist", but rather "originating in fiction"), or the issue of how far down the notability scale inclusion should go, which is an ordinary editing determination commonly made for lists of this sort. Editors may decide this is only for characters that have their own articles, or that the list should be broader and include significant characters from works of fiction that have their own articles. postdlf (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. G7 as the only substantial author has requested deletion (and there are no keep votes). ItsZippy 10:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    James Casey (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No reliable sources are provided and I found none after a search. This actor has a minor role in a single 2012 film and IMDB lists four other roles in various short films, etc., none of which I consider to meet WP:NACTOR. Ubelowme U 19:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Speedy close requested. The individual below (whom I thank for his respect for Knowledge's processes) is the article's creator requesting its deletion. As he notes, there is no bar to recreating the article if and when Mr. Casey becomes more notable and I will be happy to recommend a helpful administrator at some future point who will retrieve any deleted material for re-use. Ubelowme U 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Upon review it may have been too soon to add this actor to wikipedia, my apologies. --TheDeadRat (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    GDi Techno Solutions Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I declined this A7 CSD, but I am not convinced that this is a notable company, and no reliable sources have been provided (nor can I find any). ItsZippy 18:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete doesn't appear to be notable. OSborn contribs. 04:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete No evidence of notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, per WP:GNG. Only onle reference in the article, which is affiliated to the subject, and I cannot find any reliable sources. However, the declining of the A7 speedy deletion was correct, there are many claims of significance, such as "GDi is one of the fast growing companies in India". They are unsourced, but WP:CSD#A7 says that:

      The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Knowledge's notability guidelines

      jfd34 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not sure that a company that took 10 years to grow to 50 employees and $1,000,000 turnover can credibly claim to one of the fast growing companies in India. noq (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Sons of Norway Building (Minneapolis, Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article doesn't assert notability for the building, either for its architecture or for the organization's use of it. According to property tax records, it was built in 1961. It isn't listed in the National Register or as a local historic property. Elkman 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Keep It looks to me like a significant sized, possibly Moderne style building, and it is unique as the headquarters building of a major organization. So, while I haven't searched for or found significant coverage, I do expect that documentation about this building exists. --doncram 19:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • If you expect that documentation for this building exists, then the burden is on you to provide those sources in a Knowledge article. I've searched for documentation about it, but this reference from Emporis.com brings up a different building. A search on Emporis for the Calhoun-Isles neighborhood doesn't show anything. By the way, I've been in the neighborhood and I've visited the building, but just to get cash from an ATM in it. It really is an unremarkable office building. --Elkman 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Well i notice that there is some discussion of the building in a google book / news article in approximately 1962 or 1963, covering the Fifth National Bank of something moving in as an early, major tenant. I could be wrong, but I would expect there should be more coverage existing. --doncram 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Note that a comment from Orlady (talk · contribs) appeared here, but it was deleted by Doncram. --Elkman 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, as acknowledged in edit summary and in Talk page posting. If others wish to discuss that, please do discuss at Talk. --doncram 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    My !vote and reasoning are visible on the talk page and in the page history. --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Entirely stupid behavior, frankly, by a long-hateful editor seemingly ever intent on following and poisoning and wreaking mayhem. Way to go, violating your own agreement, by reasonable interpretation. --doncram 18:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete as written - I could not find anything on Google scholar or books about this building. If someone can find and add some sources from "the deep end" of the WWW, and add better information, then I would agree to keep it. However, as currently written and poorly sourced, it is subject to deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 August 2012
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article contains no assertion of the subject's notability, nor does an internet and Google News Archive search reveal any significant coverage of this building. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, the United States Daughters of 1812, National Headquarters is notable. The Texas Federation of Women's Clubs Headquarters is notable. And I am sure a bunch of other Sons and Daughters and Womens organization headquarters are notable. Harumph. But I have looked more now and haven't found much of anything more to add. It is confusing to me that there are lots of Flickr pics and the building seems notable to others, but that there doesn't seem to be much mention of it. Anyhow, if no one else finds anything significant, I don't mind if this article goes. If it does go, I'd prefer for it to be redirected to Sons of Norway (where a pic of the building appears) rather than entirely deleted, as the building does have the appearance of seeming notable and could be searched for by readers. --doncram 17:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Mystery tree of Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:FAILN and WP:SPIP BeIsKr (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete - I found nothing at Google, news, scholar, free images, or books. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep - The two sources already in the article are very in-depth are are independent of the topic, thus satisfying WP:GNG (thus WP:FAILN being irrelevant) and is is not a case of WP:SPIP as it's an inanimate object that is incapable of promoting itself and writing a Knowledge article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete per User:Bearian of not being able to find anything scholarly about this tree. Not sure if it is even named Mystery Tree of Arizona. The two sources in the article's do not determine WP:GNG being that one is just a personal blog post while the other is a local news article (if stories that appear on the local news are always notable for Knowledge, we would have articles on every single crime, accident, local events, etc. that has happened in the world). The tree may be popular among local residents, but not the rest of the world and from looking at the contributions of the creator, there is evidence of SPA and WP:SPIP. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    No this is not some "personal blog" but a magazine that seems religious based. As long as there is editorial control over its content and independent of the source as that source is, it passes WP:Reliable Sources. The KNXV-TV report is not about a crime or accident. Apples and oranges. Attacks on the article creator is simply ad hominem. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's a magazine that like many online magazines and news sites hosts blogs. You're splitting hairs. And how are attacks on the article creator ad hominem if it truly is a WP:SPA? Read the link on the policy before you respond. It's a valid form of criticism. BeIsKr (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Jatt Di Cadbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I haven't found any sources to confirm this film is going to be released. Any reliable sources are likely Punjabi. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete per failing WP:GNG and WP:NF. Searches for this film title find only non-rs. Searches for filmmaker Jelly Zaildar finds only non-rs. Searches for film's lead actor Angrej Ali finds he is a singer with some slight coverage, but none in connection with this film. Same for Surjit Khan... he is a singer, but no sources connect him to something called Jatt Di Cadbury. But if sources for film and filmmaker are found and offered, I am quite willing to reconsider. Schmidt, 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Daniel Bongino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Reason Polimon (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC) This article is non-notable person who is still alive. They are simply running for public office and do not currently hold, nor have ever held public office.— Polimon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Delete - not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polimon (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Dan Bongino won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Maryland in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lscottewart (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete Winning a primary does not designate someone as notable and does not meet Wikipedias criteria for notability. Notably elected individuals are considered notable. Even County Council and City Council elected officials do not meet the Knowledge guideline for notability. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalBot (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Tennfjord Mannskor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I don't like nominating this one, but unless someone can come up with some media coverage of this group to confer notability, it doesn't meet the notability requirements. __meco (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (Solar Liberty) and redirect Rizzo article to it Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Solar Liberty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Solar Liberty is a fairly smallish solar panel installation company near Buffalo. There are a couple of local press mentions and a listing in the 2008 Inc. investor's guide to small companies (but not any one after that). I don't think importance has been shown, nor can it be shown.

    PROD removed by page author, so I'm bringing the article here. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Neutral, but I'm bringing here a related page for co-nomination:
    Adam Rizzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    -- Blanchardb -- timed 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve Solar Liberty – This company has received significant coverage in reliable sources with regional coverage, including The Buffalo News, the primary newspaper of the Buffalo – Niagara Falls metropolitan area. (See for information about The Buffalo News coverage in two counties, and readership statistics.) This topic is meeting WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per: , , , , , (there's more available). Mentions include: , . Northamerica1000 10:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Alphonse Sisca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    There are two reliable sources in the article, which only mention Alphonse Sisca. Most of the material is unsourced. (I also had to remove BLP-sensitive unsourced material). WP:NOTABILITY not demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails WP:CRIME on both counts. #1: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities" Not true. #2: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Not true. Furthermore, the arrests, trials, and convictions of many people are reported in newspapers worldwide and the consensus of Wikipedians, through the development of WP:CRIME, is that they are not all deserving of articles. For that reason, WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS trump WP:BASIC. Location (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails WP:CRIME as demonstrated by users Location and Northamerica1000 (despite his keep vote); being mentioned in a news article in itself is not a source for notability. - DonCalo (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Without prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    List of Haré+Guu characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable, unreferenced fancruft list, violating WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. - Jorgath (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Keep or merge. Character descriptions are a necessary part of coverage of any notable serial fiction. GNG is satisfied by the notability of the series, the discriminate criteria is characters from that series, and at a minimum the series itself is an appropriate source for straightforward descriptions. All of which leaves us with this being at most a merger candidate purely under WP:PLOT and WP:SIZE considerations, and therefore per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE not a proper deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      Please read WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The notability of the series does NOT satisfy GNG for this article. Please also read WP:PSTS: "Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", thus the series itself isn't an appropriate source if the article is based only on it. And of course the list is indiscriminate because there is no external source indicating why all these characters are being covered on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folken de Fanel (talk • contribs)
      See comment below re: splitting. You'd do better to focus on trimming and merging this back to the main article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      As I've explained, I don't think there is anything to merge as plot on character by character basis is likely to be identical to plot in general.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep I made this article as a split off from the main as placing it in the Main article would be a mess. Haré+Guu as it is needs major work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      Split articles are not exempted from meeting the GNG, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. You don't give a valid policy-based justification for your keep recommendation, it's likely to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      Au contraire. It is "AVOIDSPLIT", not a prohibition but a rule of thumb to follow at least for as long as is feasible. The qualifying language makes this clear (WP:SIZE is clear on this, as is broad practice and consensus and past AFDs regarding character lists or episode lists. If the content cannot be trimmed down enough to not be unwieldy in the main article, it is split. Do you think it is uncommon for AFDs to keep splitoffs that do not independently satisfy the GNG? postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      WP:IINFO and WP:NOTPLOT are not just "rules of thumb to follow as long as is feasible". WP:AVOIDSPLIT directly depends on these two policies. A split article is still an article, thus has to meet all the usual policies and guidelines, and if it doesn't, then it is deleted or merged back, depending on the context. I haven't seen a broad consensus regarding character lists, some get deleted, some don't, and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", meaning that editors can't just decide that character lists are exempted from not being plot dumps. If plot summaries are too long to fit in one section of the main article, the solution is not to split plot elements into seperate articles, but to trim the amount of plot you're gonna cover in the main article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep There's enough content to split off anyway. Besides, it the article needs massive, massive cleanup, especially since it's about the anime rather than the manga, meaning it makes the cardinal sin of "based on the manga of", which is not allowed per the Anime and manga MOS. Narutolovehinata5 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      Same as above, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, split articles also have to meet GNG and it is not the case here.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete: no secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. There is nothing to merge as the series plot is already (too) extensively covered in the main article, covering the plot on a character by character basis is redundant to the main plot section.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well you can always shorten the information in the main article so that it wouldn't be redundant. Isn't that what we normally do anyway? Narutolovehinata5 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Though the main plot section needs trimming, doing it in favor of a non-notable and unsourced character list doesn't seem logical to me. I've never been a fan of these "list of XXX characters", I always considered a plot section in the main article was enough, and lists as unacceptable plot-dump splits. There are good lists of character such as Characters of Myst, but the level of sourcing seems an exception compared to others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    A plot overview of the whole series is no substitute for a clear list of and basic description of the series' characters, a standard part of any series article. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Explain the difference between "plot overview" and " basic description of the series' characters", please. Per WP:NOTPLOT, Knowledge articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. Knowledge treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, is that how Knowledge treats fiction? You should probably spend some more time reading and editing articles, so as to acquaint yourself with the difference between plot and character sections and why series articles have both, and discussing rather than lecturing everyone on what you think the law of the land is. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Within the same article that sort of differenciation doesn't violate policy (especially since the article you're referring to has substancial "real-world" sections), though I still consider it redundant if the plot summary and the character-by-character plot summary tell the same thing. When dealing with separate articles, however, there is a problem if we don't have secondary coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    People of Former French departments of the Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I have no clue what this is as there is virtually no content and no sources--PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete An odd combination of historical units with modern people. It's a subset of Algerian demographics with a name awkwardly designed to avoid the word Algeria. CMD (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete: No sources cited at all, no hint of notability, nothing specific said in the article about the people in question that suggests there is anything unusual or differentiating about them as a people, nothing to indicate that these people even consider themselves a separate people. -- BenTels (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete Maybe it was meant to be as a category, but it's effectively nonsense. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Delete Entire article is without notability or reliable source. Not even sure what it's supposed to be telling a reader. Vertium and done 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Jurickson Profar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Minor league baseball player with no other significant accomplishments. see WP:BASEBALL/N. Student7 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. One of the problems here is that you have about 10,000 professionals playing in all continents in what they consider "major" leagues. Once you've include "wonderful" prospects from minor leagues, this raises the total to maybe 20-30,000. The sheer numbers gets preposterous after a while. Worse, we haven't begun to address athletes who were really in the majors who retired before the 21st century.
    Why can't we wait until his wonderfulness becomes so obvious, that they move him up to the majors to warm a bench? Student7 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The "wonderfulness" is obvious based on the coverage in reliable sources that meets the standards of GNG. That trumps a project-specific notability guideline any day of the week. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    As to your other comments, there are far fewer than 10,000 active baseball players, at least notable ones. Every 19th century major leaguer has a wiki page, even if it's just a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Assuming these numbers are correct, do Knowledge's servers not have space for 20-30 thousand professional baseball players who meet WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL/N? Unless that is the case, I am not seeing a problem. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    M2o (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Procedural nomination. User:Pinum314 only added the nomination template, but did not complete the nomination, though also added the following rationale on the talk page: "Includes very little information and does not meet notability requirements." Keφr (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Based on the currently given sources (some of which are no longer directly accessible, if at all), my recommendation is delete. Accessible sources appear to be passing mentions at best, and WP:PRIMARY. Keφr (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  00:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    MindFreakers Networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Sounds more like an advertisement than an informational page. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Rodney J. Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:POLITICIAN. City Commissioners are usually not notable....William 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    WHJG-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This station does not seem to be notable. No Google news hits at all. Google web hits appear to be largely trivial, such as mentions on sites of the owning company, access sites to sign up to listen on line, directory sites that list this with many other stations, and other wikipedia pages. No independent sources cited in the article except to show its bare existence. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory site. Yes it does exist, but it is not in any way notable. (Prod was declined.) DES 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Knowledge:OUTCOMES#Citing_this_page_in_AfD: "This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects.
    This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of their sources, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Strong, Speedy Keep: Established consensus continues to show that radio stations are notable, this one is no different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep as a licensed broadcast radio station originating local programming, per consensus over hundreds of discussions that such radio stations are notable for the purpose of inclusion in Knowledge. Such media outlets are themselves reliable sources and as a paradox involving marketplace forces are themselves only seldom discussed by their competitors, thus leading to this solid consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been asked to withdraw my nomination. Frankly, all the sources now in the article have only trivial or directory-type coverage except for the one from the station's owners, which is not independent. It therefore fails the WP:GNG. I disagree with the consensus that all such stations are inherently notable regardless of coverage, but it apparently is a consensus, which I respect. (But then I disagreed with "all schools are notable" also.) I do not withdraw my nom, because I think this should be deleted, but I won't object if this is closed early -- the consensus does seem clear. Indeed if I were uninvolved I would have to snow close this as keep. DES 13:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete If the only reasoning that can be given for a keep is to blindly point at WP:OUTCOMES and this argument is accepted, then outcomes like this will keep happening regardless of whether or not the topic is itself notable. Effectively whatever subtopic gets on WP:OUTCOMES self-perpetuates its own existence from merely being on the list. The additions on that list don't contain examples or citations to even demonstrate the case; anyone who makes an addition to that essay (in good faith mind) is unlikely to be challenged because others will, most likely, not be familiar with it that topic area and so allow it. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, look closely at the header on the top of the page: "Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." What's a relevant policy guideline for an AfD? WP:DEL-REASON with the supplement guideline WP:N. The only source that comes close to satisfying WP:GNG is this brief in a local newspaper: . This article is nowhere close to WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, we aren't blindly pointing at anything. There is strong, established consensus that radio station and television station articles are notable, so much so it is part of the Knowledge Rulebook at WP:BROADCAST. Members of WP:WPRS are quite familiar with the radio station area of things and anyone could edit the WHJG-LP page, to say that can't or would be challenged isn't showing good faith (that AGF stuff) and is saying we are OWNing articles (untrue). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment: Per WP:BROADCAST, "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." and this station is verifiably originating unique programming, satisfying the criteria. What you're perceiving as blind pointing is a just weariness of being asked to relitigate this issue every six weeks or so despite many years of broad consensus regarding licensed broadcast stations. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Editors putting these up related articles for deletion every six weeks doesn't sound like much of a consensus. All your arguments consist of pointing at essays, BROADCAST is an essay, look at the header: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Knowledge policies or guidelines.". The article doesn't satisfy policy and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it sounds like people who aren't familiar with the established consensus of Knowledge nominating articles for deletion that they feel are non-notable. We have consensus, we have established this consensus, this consensus has been tested time and time and time again by people who aren't familiar with that consensus. Kinda gets old after awhile, especially when we point to WP:BROADCAST and people ignore it, we point to WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media and people ignore it, we tell people about the consensus and they ignore that too. After awhile you have to realize the consensus, the outcomes and the rules are in our favor, we have met WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, and others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Don't point to WP:BROADCAST then. It is an essay; essays don't necessarily represent consensus, and they don't have to to exist. For example, there is nothing to prevent me writing an essay that is the exact opposite of WP:BROADCAST in every point (as this essay points out: WP:NOTPOLICY). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    So you are saying the consensus doesn't exist? Prove it! Because I can...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. All of those are AfDs from misguided people who didn't look at the rules, didn't look at WP:BROADCAST, didn't look WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Once they realized their mistake, their withdrew or !voted "keep". The ones that weren't withdrawn all went "keep". Why? WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, because we have consensus. That proves our consensus, now prove we don't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Most (all?) of these are low turn out AfDs. Consensus can change (but it's dubious if these reflect the global consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Then perhaps WP:NBROADCAST should be created as a specialized notability guideline, like WP:NALBUM. DES 00:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not really since WP:BROADCAST is just a subsection of Knowledge:Notability (media) (for just media; ie: radio, TV, etc.), which itself is a subsection of WP:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Nope, Knowledge:Notability (media) is not a subsection of WP:N, Knowledge:Notability (media) is just an essay an can represent a minority (or just a single person's) opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    @IRWolfie: Wow, faced with all that and you still can't admit there is consensus. For someone who has been here since 2006, you don't know the rules all that well, do ya?
    @Closing Admin: Move to strike IRWolfie's !vote as the evidence produced above shows solid consensus has been formed (a looooong time ago), WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media back that consensus up, and IRWolfie is stubbornly and blindly disregarding that established solid consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In summary the question is does the essay WP:BROADCAST trump the notability guideline. In neutralhomer's list of AfDs, I note the same faces appear to have also voted here: I suggest this be re-listed for a further period to get a feeling for the true global consensus on the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I strongly oppose anything that puts already established solid consensus through the ringer for one stubborn individual with zero experience editing radio station articles, giving input on radio station notablity discussions or posting on WP:WPRS outside of one edit on the WBZ-FM article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Assume good faith. An Ad hominem attack and incivility are uncalled for. I am not required to agree with you, the closing admin is fully capable of weighing up the consensus. There is nothing wrong with checking the consensus on an issue and I find it rather puzzling that you disagree. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Funny you should tell me to AGF when you haven't even tried to assume good faith. Every response you have made is tinged in bad faith. You are faced with clear consensus and yet you refuse to see it, refuse to change you !vote and think relisting to make a POINT (as Dravecky as pointed at below) is a good thing. Don't talk to me about good faith until you show some yourself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    There have been only 6 editors in this discussion; if anything not a solid indicator of the true consensus (i.e the consensus across all wikipedians). Consensus also isn't a vote count, it's a weigh up of the arguments "through the lens of policy and guidelines". IRWolfie- (talk)
    Wolfie, both Dravecky and I have been here about the same amount of time you have and Dravecky is an admin, so I think he knows the rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Being an admin adds zero weight in a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The sources are all primary. The Rock River Times source is actually just a re-print of a press release. Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment: Neutralhomer, we have gone over this before, WP:Consensus#Level of consensus says "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Therefore a consensus at WT:WikiProject Radio Stations can not overwrite WP:Notability#General notability guideline. Because of that, any consensus at WikiProject Radio Stations that does not follow the general notability guideline is invalid. Powergate92Talk 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Response: ...and I have said this numerous times before, at the top of Knowledge:Notability (media), which WP:BROADCAST is part of, it says "This notability essay for media topics is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a topic should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." Emphasis on the bold is mine. That, my friend, is your consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    So what? WP:GNG is the official guideline. No independent sources, no article. Clear as crystal. The Banner talk 23:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's a line added to an essay that's infrequently edited from 4 years ago. If the essay truly had as much consensus as GNG it would be a guideline. It's not. How much it reflects consensus is undetermined. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    @The Border: Well, because it is established consensus...and we have 6 sources. FCC is independent, The Rock River Times is independent (the press release mentions two stations, not just the one and the other is owned by another company), Arbitron is independent, the source to the station can be replaced with 8 different sources for each program listed, plus the ones in Spanish. Easier to just link to the station's schedule.
    @IRWolfie: It's still in the essay (which is part of WP:N) and it doesn't matter when it was edited, that's not relevant. You are not here to determine the consensus of any article, that is for the community and not one person and the community has determined radio station and television station articles have consensus and are notable. Again, with the fingers in the ears. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Neutralhomer: WP:BROADCAST is an essay about notability, it's not part of WP:Notability. For guidelines that are part of WP:Notability, see Category:Knowledge notability guidelines. Also, WP:Policies and guidelines#Role says "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Powergate92Talk 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Neutralhomer: Yes, the FCC is an independent reliable source. But The Rock River Times article is not independent because it's a press release. As for Arbitron, I'm not sure if that is reliable source or not. Powergate92Talk 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The information available from the FCC website is primary source information, in the same way that patents are primary sources even though they are made available by the USPTO. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    A Gazzeteer is a geographical dictionary/directory: I don't think it is necessarily apparent that a small radio station with no significant coverage merits inclusion any more than a local shop or an internet streaming website does. Also; WP:CONSENSUS can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 20:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    The Flash Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Significance has been asserted: some adventures of The Flash, a superhero in DC Universe, so not an A7. Appears to be non-canonical fan fic only, with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete. I wasn't able to find a single non-primary, independent, and reliable source to show that this fan fic has any notability. A search for the author's name brings up nothing of import either. I'm actually unable to really even locate the supposed webcast and the only thing that I was able to find that pertained to this other than the ComicBookMovie.com post, which seems to have been posted by the webcast's creator. I don't really think this even exists. Even if I'm wrong and it does exist, nothing comes up under "Flash Trilogy" and "webcast" or under the author's name, so there's definitely no notability here. If it was popular then something would have come up with some combination of the above. This might be able to be speedied under one of the various categories, actually.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete As noted by Tokyogirl179, there's nothing out there to even verify that this thing exists, let alone passes any sort of notability requirements. Fan fiction in general would need to have some sort of sources showing notability, even if it is fanfiction of a famous character, and this, having nothing, is a clear case of deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I'm willing to assist with a selective merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Roanoke Valley Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Recently established, run-of-the-mill congregation with no indication of significance. The references included in the article, other than the Web site of the congregation itself, range from the irrelevant (the home pages of the seminaries that the pastor attended) to the tangential (the history of the congregation's apparently nonnotable parent church, the historic-district status of the neighborhood containing the storefront where the congregation will begin meeting next Sunday) to a seemingly self-supplied, directory-like precis in the local newspaper. I'm not finding anything better online, so I suggest that this article fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete. Can't imagine a church like this getting substantial coverage, and given the recent date of establishment, we'll need to beware feature-style news stories. There's definitely nothing demonstrating notability right now. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - I'm not seeing anything after a short and obviously self-supplied snippet from the Roanoke Times. I generally think a low bar for churches is a desirable thing as these tend to be community landmarks, but owing to the recent origin of this one I don't think that thinking holds much water. Fails GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - Can't see anything notable -- not longevity; nothing about size of membership; no major media coverage. Appears primarily to be promotional (posing NPOV problems) and Knowledge is not here to tell the world about your noble cause .... --Lquilter (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - No evidence of notability. No evidence that the church is particularly large, and it is definitely not very old. Brief profile on the local newspaper website is not the kind of third-party coverage needed for GNG. A large part of the article is about the parent church; so I wondered if the parent church might be notable, but I couldn't find third-party coverage of it, either. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep - Although the church is relatively new (founded in 2009), it has a hundred years of rich local history. What's notable here is this history, which the church is invariably a part of. Although there isn't many newspaper articles about the "church," the bigger picture here is the story of it's formation; which has been cited and referenced.MagicEye (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe the founding church which is much older is notable. But this is a new church, begun in 2009 as a "plant"; it doesn't have its own notability, and notability is not inherited. If the source church is notable, then the (cited) history and so forth would go in an article about the source church; and this church can (until its own notability is established) be a small footnote in that article. --Lquilter (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    I Google-searched for information about the founding church (which I referred to in my comment as the "parent church") and did not find anything to indicate notability. --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Genesis 1:1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Reasons for deletion: Duplicate information:

    1. This page is already covered at Genesis creation narrative#The beginning
    2. This page does not give enough proper references where some content is considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
    3. The POV has wp:weight that is already covered at: Bereishit (parsha)

    Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Keep, as the passage itself has been the subject of tons of scholarly commentary — probably more than almost any other passage in the Hebrew Bible. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Reformatted from the original version to make this easily editable. The AFD creator didn't add it to the log when he nominated it, so I've added it to the log for two days later. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Such article currently does not exist. You would have to start from scratch with the existing page to create an indepth topic from scholarly commentaries. Currently, this article is no different than Bereishit (parsha). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, the sourcing problems derive from a lack of footnotes; I don't know about some of the sources, but others are clearly going to be examples of scholarly input. I suspect that the Oxford Annotated Bible would be an example of this, and the Urbach book, being published by Harvard UP (according to Amazon), looks reliable as well. I just checked a print edition of Keil-Delitzsch, who devote several pages to the topic at the beginning of their Genesis volume; it's my guess that it also appears elsewhere in their renowned series. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep and trim the parent article - If the content is entirely redundant, then I would probably propose editing down the main Genesis article and including a "see ..." reference for the Genesis 1:1. In its English-language version, this is one of the most familiar passages in the entire Christian Bible, and has, as User:Nyttend observes, been the subject of massive amounts of scholarly scrutiny dedicated to this passage alone. --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Original AFD link: Link to Original AFD (a keep) - from way back in 2005. The focus here was on whether individual verses should have entries; its use in Creationist ideology; etc. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete chopping books into fragments and giving each fragment a separate article is just not acceptable, regardless of the book. This is not about notability--it would be grotesque to discuss that--it is about due form and common sense. complainer (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why isn't it acceptable? Small passages of the Bible are different from small passages of other books because of the immense amount of work that has been published on the Bible. Yes, it makes sense to have summary articles on larger biblical portions, but when we write enough on a small section that it doesn't fit into a summary article, it should be split out. I've not checked to see whether this has ever been split out of somewhere else, but it's definitely too long to be put anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep One of the best known and most discussed biblical verses of all time, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources discussing that one verse. Surely you've seen the Genesis 1:1 guy who shows up at sporting events wearing his rainbow-colored beard, sidelocks and shtreimel, furiously waving his sign reading "GENESIS 1:1" behind home plate or the goal posts at a football stadium in a bid to attract the attention of television viewers. Surely there must be some other biblical verse that also has encyclopedic coverage similar to this one. If Genesis 1:1 is not the most famous Bible verse, it surely ranks highly in the Top 10 of all time. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep  Hard to take this seriously, there are over 150 Wikilinks to this article.  The nomination provides no plan for fixing 150 Wikilinks, perhaps this maintenance is "someone else's problem"?  Nor is merger to a larger topic a serious alternative.  Just say what there is to be said about the topic and move on.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep per Knowledge:Bible verses/2010, which last assessed community consensus on articles covering particular sections of holy writings--not just the Hebrew or Christian Bibles, FWIW. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    You're basing this on an obscure page from two years ago in which 2 people voted support and 1 person voted oppose and another person hedged??? Whatever that page is, it is not authoritative community consensus and shame for suggesting that it is. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep per all the above reasons cited. The nominator is being grossly unfair to this article, and each example he cites is from a different context and would not add up in this attempt to artificially homogenize this subject by getting rid of this informative and well-written article. The article does a good job to basically describe and explains a key under-pinning Bible verse for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The article is fair to all points of view and is fully compliant with WP's WP:NPOV policies citing WP:RS that are WP:V. What a pity it is to pick on such an important foundational verse that underpins and is a premise of all of Judeo-Christian culture. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep; I recently concurred with redirecting Genesis 1:3 which had no significant commentary, but this is well worth keeping. It has substantially different scope from the pages which the nominator mentions as duplicates. It also has references, although I have just tagged the page for these to be moved inline. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - I just want to add a couple of comments addressing some of the substantive complaints / fears about this article (in addition to my !vote of "keep" above).
      1. The article on the creation myth(s) in Genesis should still be complete and flow together as an article, even if this article stands alone. There are many, many precedents in Knowledge of articles on-the-whole and subparts being split out -- some of them even done well.
      2. Any future discussion of articles on individual verses should note that this verse has repeatedly been singled out as exceptional -- a handful of verses, like Genesis 1:1, John 3:16, etc., arguably merit their own articles, without any concern that we're getting into "verse-by-verse hermeneutics" that would raise the issue of thousands of different articles on individual verses.
    --Lquilter (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep -- It is a sad day when it is not appropriate to have a commentary on such a significant verse as this in WP. On the other hand, there will only be a limited number of Bible verses of sufficient significance to warrant such treatment. It might be justified for Genesis 1:2, but only a single article the rest of the chapter on the rest of the chapter, possibly with a second one discussing "evening and morning" punctuation of the story. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Logan Kurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Vanity page created by a single-purpose account. The subject of the page spends his free time blogging about the disability of not-so-disabling Tourette syndrome, receiving passing mentions at best: the most reliable sources are Calabasas Patch and the Jewish Tribe Journal; accomplishments include holding a talk for high school kids and shaking a congressman's hand. Possibly the least notable subject to have been on wikipedia so far, keeping this article would open the floodgates of having an article about whoever blogs about rescuing upturned terrapins or building model train tracks. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination) (subject's sister). complainer (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    No problem; I don't AfD much, and am therefore quite slow with these things . complainer (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. The coverage, even in the marginally reliable sources noted in nominator's rationale, is routine. They have to find someone every single month to be the Calabasas whiz kid of the month; that shouldn't also give them a wikipedia page. There's not much else out there about this kid.What do you have against terrapins?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    I can assure you of my full solidarity with the cause of upturned terrapins; I just think people should be out there straightening them instead of blogging about it complainer (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. If the subject does become notable you can ask me to restore it or visit WP:UNDELETE Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Brion Carnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable college football player. Coverage does not extend beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet notability requirements per WP:NCOLLATH. Barkeep/$ 12:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Guys. Here is the skinny on Carnes. He is a very talented athlete for the Nebraska Cornhuskers. He just may explode this year. It's very possible. He is the 2nd cousin of Tommie Frazier, and some of the Nebraska Cornhusker faithul see him as being maybe another Tommie Frazier.

    Right now, Taylor Martinez is entrenched as the starter at NU. However, Carnes has a tremendous up side and should get a lot more work this fall. If y'all could just hold back on your judgement for just a few more months, you may see why I feel this way.

    Either way though - what y'all decide to do, it is fine. I'm OK with whatever.(still I need to chronicle Carnes on my own because he has three years left with Nebraska - and might be a very talented late bloomer, i.e. Iowa's Brad Banks!) Brion Carnes' season to shine could be in 2012 - but is more probable for 2013. At this point, I just don't know. He keeps the "great athlete quarterback" tradition at the University of Nebraska (Tommie Frazier, Steve Taylor, Turner Gill, Jammal Lord, Scott Frost, Mickey Joseph, McCathorne Clayton, Mike Grant, Keithen McCant, Eric Crouch, Nate Mason, Bobby Newcombe) alive by his presence being on their roster.

    All I do know is that he is a tremendous athlete! He runs a 4.45 in the 40 yard dash - and is quicker than Taylor Martinez. I didn't say as "speed fast" as Martinez (who runs about a 4.40), but Carnes runs a nasty option - and his timing on the delivery of his pitches can just mess up a defense.

    I can't wait to see what he does this fall. Just my two cents! Rod Hayes (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Well, just let me know if indeed the decision is to go with Userfy. I don't know how to perform the function of "Userfy" as how to make Carnes' article just so I can edit it "on my page" while he develops in Nebraska's system as their 2nd string quarterback, but it sounds like a good idea. I don't know who developed Carnes biography to start with, but I am a big fan of him - and was the moment Nebraska signed him right out of high school. This will be better than deleting it. I just need to read up on how I would place this article inside my user page as far as using the "Userfy" method. This sounds OK to me, though. Thanks, guys. Rod Hayes (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete and do not userify. We would only userify if there were some prospect of an article being soon possible. As her defender says, it may take him 3 years more to develop his potential. The usual maximum time to userify is 3 months or sometimes 6. The purpose of userification is to gove time for an article to be written about a notable subject, not to give the extended time necessary for a subject to do the things that might eventually make for notability. By that standard, we should write and userify articles on everyone here, for we all might eventually become notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    You know, men. I think Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini knows the "notability" issue of Brion Carnes. Thing is, Carnes is a quarterback. He has to learn the system before he can be placed into "game-like" conditions. Carnes' value to Nebraska - I think I can say - is pretty high. It's higher than what the typical spectator would view it as. Sure, he hasn't had the type of impact of a player like last year's Oregon's true freshman running back De'Anthony Thomas, but you have to remember that it is a lot easier for a team to work in a youthful highly touted freshman running back than it is for that same team to break in a QB.

    I am thinking that Carnes can be every bit as explosive as De'Anthony Thomas. Again, we'll just have to see how the season plays out. Nebraska is a great fit for Carnes, and if that big offensive line can crank it up (yes, I know about current news of sophomore OL Tyler Moore leaving Nebraska to go home to Florida) - then Carnes can do some damage as a runner and passer. I am aware that Taylor Martinez is "their man," but football is a very physical game. We should see Carnes in the game this year for Nebraska. And if that Cornhusker offensive line does as it has in times past, the sky is the limit.Rod Hayes (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    On the flip side, he could suffer a career ending injury before the season ever starts and never play another snap of football again. Knowledge is not a Crystal Ball. He hasn't done anything yet to be notable under Knowledge guidelines. Barkeep/$ 13:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Really? The "Bo Pelini knows what is notable" argument? I haven't actually heard that one before. Maybe we should add it to Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Guys, I'm just having fun with this. Carnes has to prove it on the field. It's going to be an exciting season. This is what college football fans live for. Rod Hayes (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    The result was redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    List of championships won by the New York Yankees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    List is a complete repetition of the information found in the New York Yankees main page infobox. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redundant article; subject material already covered in other articles consistent with established article hierarchy and structure of WP:BASEBALL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep no policy-based reason for deletion articulated by nominator or other delete !voters. While it may overlap and/or be redundant to other articles, it's not a content fork, and presents in one place notable, encyclopedic content. If anything, if this level of detail is already present in New York Yankees, then it should be removed from the article and a reference to this list be inserted, per summary style expectations. Jclemens (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that the redirect suggestion has been mentioned, I'm fine with that as well. Currently, three people have stated they wouldn't mind redirecting the article, so should I withdraw this article from AFD now or wait until there are more votes in favour of redirecting? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I could support a redirect too, but I've unfortunately seen where AfDs are (IMO incorrectly) closed as "no consensus" when it seemed to me the consensus was to do anything but keep.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll support a redirect also, though honestly I would keep the article if it's rewritten to discuss the championships the Yankees won in detail instead of navigation boxes. The subject area clearly meets GNG, considering how many books, and newspaper articles discuss simply championships that the Yankees won and comparing those teams against each other. Secret 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of New York Yankees seasons, as per Jenks24. AutomaticStrikeout 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Firmoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    New article, PROD has been removed without comment. Whole article is promotional and does not show why this organisation is notable. asnac (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    The mason affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    CSD reversed by admin, stating notability was implied in that they have toured internationally. However, the article states that only members of the band have toured, not the band itself. Further is without source. Upon review for outside sources on notability I find none. Only conclusion I can draw is this page is for self-promotion. Author is also largely using the page as a sandbox and tweaking and making edits, including deleting my first attempt at tagging for speedy deletion. This is the first AFD I have created, so please let me know on my talk page if I did anything wrong in the setup. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment I've cleaned the article up somewhat and I ended up removing most of the hotlinks because they were unusable as reliable sources. Many of them were to non-notable blogs, with one entry being just a listing for the band rather than an actual review. I'll see what I can find, but I've been looking and there's not much out there. On a side note, I don't see where Fredonia Records is a notable enough label to warrant keeping the band under #5 of WP:BAND. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. I cannot see where this band has received any sort of notability that would have them pass WP:BAND. There is a lack of reliable sources reporting about them, they haven't won any sort of awards, none of their songs are in a national rotation, the band itself has not been part of a national tour where they received attention (although the article suggests that individual band members have on their own), and none of the musicians are so notable that they would keep the article under #6. Much of the qualifications for WP:BAND boil down to "having reliable sources", which this band lacks. I found primary sources, junk hits that came up under "Mason Affair", and the occasional non-notable blog hit, but nothing that would show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom and Tokyogirl. GregJackP Boomer! 11:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Discussion of possible renaming or merging can continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thrissur Metropolitan Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No such area defined for this city nor a separate governing authority exists. The article was created based on the urban agglomeration population (provisional figures). —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 12:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


    Thrissur Urban Development Authority

    Thrissur earlier had a developmental authority known as Thrissur Urban Development Authority. It had designed lot of projects for Thrissur. But the Government of Kerala has dissolved it so that it can give more importance to Trivandrum and Kochi cities. Later when Census came in 2011, it has described Thrissur Metropolitan Area very clearly including the Municipalities and Panchayats. So there was a concept of Thrissur Metropolitan Area earlier also.

    Yes, it is a new topic. So what’s wrong in that? A new film releases in English or Hindi. Is the Wikipedians wait for 5 or 10 years to make an article about that particular film? No. They make the article before the film goes to the studios. Here I am talking about Indian Census of 2011 not some Utopian Census. And I think that is enough to make an article about Thrissur Metropolitan Area.

    In Kerala only two cities get priority, Kochi and Trivandrum. All the money and manpower goes to these cities. Governments are less interested in other cities. For that purpose I can’t do anything. My priority is to create an article about Thrissur Metropolitan Area.

    • Keep The primary source calls this an "urban agglomeration", so I don't understand the reasoning to keep the topic as Thrissur Metropolitan Area; nonetheless, this is a govt-defined populated area.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • There are 53 such urban agglomerations in India. Given the case, we may go for creating urban agglomerations for every possible city. Also I don't think it has much notability outside the "population" scope. There are no specific boundaries for urban agglomerations defined by the same census authorities whatsoever. They are mainly used for calculating the urban population. There is not much possibility for the article to grow beyond a stub. Given the concerns, I don't think a separate article is needed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Merge into Thrissur. Thrissur is by no means, metropolitan or even close to it. This statement In Kerala only two cities get priority, Kochi and Trivandrum. All the money and manpower goes to these cities. Governments are less interested in other cities. For that purpose I can’t do anything. My priority is to create an article about Thrissur Metropolitan Area. is absolutely invalid in this case. IF you want to promote your city, do it in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. If you want to advertise your city as a metro city, please consider creating a blog, not a Knowledge article. This isn't the place for WP:Original Research --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Census of 2011

    I am not promoting any city here. I just wrote an article on Thrissur Metropolitan Area in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Is that a wrong thing? Census of 2011 is not done alone in Thrissur. If you can base other articles on Census data, and make big big claims, then what is that problem of this article? So if you are going to delete this article, first tell all Wikipedians that Census of 2011 is not an encyclopedic data. From tomorrow onwards, no body will give citations to Census 2011 because some narrow minded people sitting in some metro cities don’t like that.

    124.124.211.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    You cannot create articles simply like that. Each and every article must follow certain principles. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not a narrow minded person sitting in a Metro city, I also live in a Tire II city called Coimbatore. Census 2011 is not in the PUBLIC domain, so I refuse to comment on that. As Vensatry said, you need to follow a few policies and principles like WP:N, WP:EXIST --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 10:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Timo Maas. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Loud (Timo Maas album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This album article should be deleted because it fells Knowledge:NMG#Albums. The album has no notability because it didn't chart at all or has a single that performed well on international charts. Additionally the article is poor of information about its background, recording, composition or reception. — Tomica (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Timo Maas. The album seems to have received a review from allmusic and may be of help towards improving Timo Maas' content. Perhaps placing some of its information to the artist's article would be better. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure). Per last comment, I am withdrawing the nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Community Media Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The organisation looks notable from its description, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to verify its claims. The closest I found for an independent, reliable source was this and this, neither of which gives it anything more than passing mention. Ritchie333 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep - Completely bona fide; see, e.g., books.google.com search -- inclusion in numerous reference books on media; mention of its role in government work ("With the recent passage of the Communication Bill into law - thanks in large measure to the persistent lobbying efforts and policy analyses conducted by the Community Media Association (CMA)" -- Kevin Howley, Community Media). See also previous name, "Community Radio Association", for many more. --Lquilter (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep I've added various references into the article; enough to verify notability, I think. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't mean to sound like a cantankerous old sod, but the only one of the references so far that really goes into some depth about what the CMA is and what it does is asnac's first article - everything else talks around the subject and mentions it in passing, like my two original references. However, if we can find lots of passing references, then that probably does indicate notability after all, and if nobody else can put forward alternative arguments by tomorrow, I'll probably withdraw this. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    World Education University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Other than information generated by the project itself there is no information published in reliable sources about the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    The project is free online education...similar to coursera and edX. We are similar to them and I followed their outlines. There are outside references and links to similar companies. Thanks. Holly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollymer (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Strong delete To judge by its own website this "university" is not even up and running yet - see this page for example. So essentially what the article says is aspiration rather than fact, which is not what an encyclopaedia is about. Anyway, the online sources cited in the Wiki article don't seem to mention this organisation and I looked up an online version of the first hard copy reference (found here) which didn't mention the organisation either. The "History" section is blatantly about other organisations. So a bit of fakery in this article. And no notability, so it needs to go. asnac (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. I must say, of the additional sources supplied, the majority of them are not compelling. These non-compelling sources include blogs, opinion pieces, or other self-published works, as well as interviews and youtube videos of lectures and short articles the subject wrote himself on balatarin.com. None of these are indicative of notability. The fact that some sources suggest notoriety as a former dictator's son, and he has some coverage by a couple of legitimate news source, tilt the balance in favor of keeping. The article has many instances of "recognition" of the subject, which don't appear to be valid, particularly when supported by self-published or other non-reliable sources, and these instances should be trimmed. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Reza Parchizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    per WP:N. The article seems to be well referenced but in fact none of the sources provided can't be considered as RS. I just checked all these sources, and all of them are the articles created by the subject and not on him, with the exception of these three items which are reactions to one of his works 1, 2, 3. Farhikht (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    per WP:N. The subject has been interviewed by popular radio (Radio Alborz Interview with Reza Parchizadeh on Monarchy and Republic) and TV (Mardom TV Interview with Reza Parchizadeh on "From Tehran to Cairo") channels as an expert on political and cultural issues. He has also been a reader at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). These could be regarded as evidence of notability. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    per WP:N. The subject has also been a notable individual and researcher at University of Tehran: Reza Parchizadeh at the International Conference on Short Story, Tehran University, 2008, Reza Parchizadeh at the International Commemoration of Xayyam, Tehran University, 2008, Reza Parchizadeh at the Opening of the New Majors, Tehran University, 2008, and Reza Parchizadeh's Last Day at Tehran University, 2009. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    per WP:N. Given the fact that the subject is also a journalist, he has also had a considerable readership so far, which is obvious from this, this, this, this and this link. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    per WP:N. The subject has also been widely noted by the Islamic Republic media. Look at this, this, and this website. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 3:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    per WP:N. The subject is also a leading critic of the issue of separatism in Iran; so much so that his position on the issue has been contested a number of times. Look at this, this, and this link. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 3:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Radio Alborz is a local Persian radio based in Denmark, Mardom TV is a local TV. Balatarin is a community website which allows people to vote web content and Iran Global apparently has no editorial oversight, according to this anyone can register and post article. None of them can't be considered RS.Farhikht (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To Farhikht, 1) Radio Alborz is a local Persian radio station, granted; but Mardom TV can never be dismissively categorized as a "local TV station," for it is a satellite TV channel with a worldwide reach, be it among the Iranian community. It has also interviewed many prominent figures, which is obvious from the list accessible via the hyperlink. Thus, Mardom TV IS a primary source, and a reliable one. 2) Balatarin, as you mentioned, "is a community website which allows people to vote web content." what I suggested, quite apparent from my former post, was that the editors could have a look at the large number of the readers of the subject's articles, which is visible in this website; not that I mentioned it as a primary source. 3) Iran Global, as you mentioned, might not have a tight editorial oversight. However, this is due to the fact that most of the writers who self-publish their material in that website are already well-known, and the editor-in-chief sees no obligation to vet all of their articles. Besides, this does not detract from the subject's credit, as his articles are also published in many other websites that certainly do have tight supervision on the content they publish. 4) The subject is also a notable theorist for republicanism. Look at this video of the symposium of the Movement of the Secular Democratic Republicans of Iran, where he is mentioned by Farhang Ghassemi as one of the influential theorists of Iranian republicanism. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Farhang Ghassemi just says: "Parchizadeh is a nice young guy who collaborate with us". Ghassemi is a poet and not a political figure or academician.Farhikht (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep The subject, especially with regard to the Hague incident, has been specifically mentioned by and quoted in numerous news sources of the Islamic republic as a prominent “opposition figure.” These could be found via Sadkhabar, Donyayesanat, and Ghatreh news websites. Therefore, the claim that he is not “notable” is by no means well-grounded. Also, Farhang Ghassemi has been a famous political activist for more than three decades now, and he directs the political website Ranginkaman which is a main platform for the promotion of republican ideas. Parsa2009 (talk) 5:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)— Parsa2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • It behooves an encyclopedia editor to have comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter he intends to vet and edit, and to be honest and impartial about the material with which he is dealing. These, unfortunately, I don't see in you, Mr. Farhikht; for you categorically deny the political status of Farhang Ghassemi, one of the prominent figures of the Iranian opposition, and then present a partial mistranslation of what he has said about the subject of this article. And yet, this is not to mention your overlooking the whole bulk of primary and reliable evidence that was presented by me before as to the "notability" of the subject. As such, I'm afraid this nomination for deletion is not concerned with objective verifiability, but rather with subjective taste. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    The notability of Mr Ghassemi may not apply to Mr. Parchizadeh, because the notability is inherited.Farhikht (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Referring you to the same page, inherited, you can see that it stipulates that "If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." Apparently, that has been cumulatively and overwhelmingly taken care of in my previous posts. And, Farhang Ghassemi's suggestion was just one indicator among many of the notability of the subject. Therefore, to repeat what I stated in my penultimate post, this persistence on your part to delete the article, notwithstanding the bulk of reliable third-party evidence I have presented so far, smacks of personal bias against the subject of this article. Iranhumanwatch (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Mario Party 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested PROD. I repeat the reasons in the PROD: There is nothing in any secondary sources about this game and nothing from Nintendo about this. --MuZemike 04:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --MuZemike 04:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Delete per nom. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete per above arguments. There's nothing official out there about this, not even an announcement of the game being made. Is it likely that it'll get made? Probably- the series sells well and a new entry would make more money for Nintendo. But should we have an article that has nothing to back up any of the claims contained within? No. Until Nintendo officially announces that a tenth entry is planned, there shouldn't even be a redirect under this title. Even if it is announced, games have a way of never getting released even when there's a lot of anticipation for them or getting pushed back for years and years.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete - Per WP:HOAX/ WP:CSD G3. The game hasn't been announced, and this isn't even one of those titles where there have been well circulated rumors or leaks or anything. It's all completely made up. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete until inevitable Recreate -- Per WP:HOAX, as an unannounced game we have no evidence that this is even in the planning stages, let alone a real game. However, knowing Nintendo it one day will be, so rest assured article creator; you'll get another chance in the (probably near-)future. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete - How do we know if this will exist? WP:HOAX applies. ZappaOMati 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete All search hits are derivatives of this article, don't think it's a blatant hoax though Seasider91 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speedy Delete as a hoax. While its inevitable that a game with this title will be made at some point, all the information contained in this article has absolutely no source where it was derived from, meaning that it was completely made up. Rorshacma (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2012. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Nimrod Allen III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I originally tagged this for speedy deletion and the author removed the tag (twice). The article has been cleaned up some since then, however I'm still not convinced of the notability of the subject and the article probably still violates WP:NPOV. Running this through AfD seems like the best option. AutomaticStrikeout 02:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Delete, not notable, no GNews or GHits. Refs do not show notability. GregJackP Boomer! 02:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete/redirect to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2012. I gave the article a thorough scrubbing of all of the blatant promotional material, but it was all in vain since there just aren't any sources out there to show that this guy is a notable candidate for office. The only things that come up that pertain to him are predominantly "junk hits" (such as people searches and social media sites) or primary sources that cannot show notability. The links that were previously used as sources (which I've moved to the EL section) do not show notability and the ones that aren't primary are not the type that would be considered reliable sources. As for the justifications against the PRODs in the article's talk page, merely running for an election does not give automatic notability. While you do have to put forth a little effort to get on the ballot, it's not a task so overwhelmingly arduous that the process would be notable. (It's not the equivalent of descending to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, in other words.) I suggest that since his name is on the ballot, a redirect probably wouldn't be unreasonable, although I'm not sure how often it'd actually be searched once the election is over let alone during the election.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete Per Tokyogirl79. Gage (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. A senator is a notable person, a person who runs for senate is not necessarily a notable person. I don't see anything in the sources that shows that he meets Knowledge's notability criteria. The creator has moved the article to userspace, leaving a redirect behind- and also moved this discussion to userspace, although I reversed that one. Closing admin should check to make sure she doesn't leave any stray bits behind if article is deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are sources for some of the information in the article, but because: 1) there's not really journalistic articles (other than a transcription of one interview) that discusses his campaign, 2) attempts to make sources look like they are source of information about Mr. Nimrod, 3) being a senate candidate is not enough in itself to warrant and article and 4) I cannot find anything on the IDEA Independent party, I agree with others about deleting the artice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Interesting enough he is on television as I type this........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauresent (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    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 Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Their notability is dependent entirely on this one event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Suntribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails general notability. This girl group disbanded very quickly after they formed, and released no material during their small "career"; only being part of Eurovision 2005. Statυs (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    *Keep - The articles that the nominator has mentioned do fulfil notability for many reasons. They were participants in a contest that is watched by over 125 million viewers worldwide. The contest itself is highly notable as are the artist(s) who participated in the contest over the last 57 years, and their songs which they performed. Wesley Mouse 11:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Not so much canvassed as notified of an article with a subject concerning a Wiki group that I am a part of. And of a subject that I have much knowledge and interest in. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    But I agree with you that it is better to not "ask" a user per say to look at a AfD. But on the other hand asking someone with knowledge about a certain subject. And when both users are members of the Eurovision project it can hardly be considered bad faith. peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I find it highly offensive that a user has falsely accused me of canvassing without justification. As a member of WP:EURO I was acting in good faith to inform another member of the project of an article discussion - know that they didn't have the article alerts page on their watchlist. I felt it polite to allow a member of the same project the opportunity to participate in a discussion and make their own !vote choice. Wesley Mouse 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Justification = BabbaQ votes keep 99.9% of the time. Wesley mouse failed to notify those who are known to vote delete. It's offensive not to notify a wide range of editors. babbaQ does not need direction of where to vote. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Still assume good faith Libstar. I have no reason to !vote Keep if it is a Delete worthy article. Me and Wesley are members of the same Eurovision wikiproject and both have knowledge about the contest and its participants and that is the main reason to why Wesley notified me, not because he wanted a Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Let's Get Loud (Suntribe song). The article does seem to meet notability because they performed at Eurovision Song Contest but there seems to be a lack of improvement/development as the group was short lived. Since the notable event is a song contest it is better to re-direct it the song entry article. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      we have been trough this before Bleubeatle. Performing at a Music competition with more then 100 million peoplewatching is notable in itself. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    We havent merged any created Eurovision performer/performers article of the Eurovisions from the 21st century via the fact that it is notablility to have performed at Eurovision so far. So lets not set a strange one-off precedent here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't understand. I haven't mentioned any mergers in my sentence. Re-directs are very different from mergers. Perhaps editing the article would be the best thing so that it has its own page? Then hopefully the nominator would re-consider withdrawing this. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think what BabbaQ means is by redirecting the article some or all of its contents would most likely need to be merged into the other in order to keep a record of some of the facts. If we redirect, then the contents from Suntribe article would technically be erased. Wesley Mouse 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm I'm not sure about that. All I know is that a deletion means a loss of information which I'm not supporting since I believe its content is still important. Looking at the article now, more content has been added since it was nominated so let's wait for the nominator's verdict then. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep - Being short lived doesn't make a band non-notable. Saying they "released no material" is also false, as they released another single, which means it doesn't violate WP:BIO1E. Even so, that policy also states that "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". Better sources are indeed required, however. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Strongly Keep - Back in February, the page for Anri Jokhadze, the Georgian participant at the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, came under an AFD. Like Suntribe, he achieved nothing notable apart from performing at Eurovision. At the time, Wesley Mouse said the following (which applies here too):

      If such articles become deleted, then we'd might as well start deleting all articles relating to one-time participants in Eurovision, and create a black hole in a project. Many English-speaking users worldwide rely on such Eurovision-related articles for the purpose of research for whatever reasons, whether it be pub quizzes, or general enthusiasm for the Eurovision Song Contest, and everything - artist(s) and song(s). Don't start crashing down a European heritage and cause a huge research black hole.

      This means that if Suntribe gets deleted, then, by Status' logic, we'll have to get rid of Jemini, Josh Dubovie and Lindsay Dracass for a start. And this is just going backwards. This makes this whole nomination ridiculous, as is the nomination for The Mullans... Spa-Franks (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What exactly is "by Status' logic" supposed to mean? Jemini, Josh Dubovie and Lindsay Dracass are completely different situations, all three of those have a song that has charted; proving there is something, at least, notable about them. I would really like for someone who isn't involved with the Eurovision project to comment here, as there are many articles created that are apart of the project that fail notability and should not exist. It seems as if all members of the project feel every single song ever done on Eurovision is notable, when that's not the case at all. Each song can easily be summarized in their respective years. Statυs (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Participating at Eurovision the worlds by far biggest music competition on TV with more then 100 million viewers givs instant notability. Even if the singer/s, groups never charts with a song again. Representing a whole country is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, it isn't. Please take a look at WP:ONEEVENT. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". 20th place is not significant. I think articles for anything above ten are appropriate, but anything beyond that are ridiculous. Statυs (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think Status already understands how notable the event is BabbaQ. I think his point was that not every contestant/participant/representative in this event requires their own article unless they have done other notable activities beyond the contest. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly what I'm saying. Statυs (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ever heard of a strawman before?--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I bet you do.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It appears that you don't. Statυs (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    No I understand, do you I ask?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    You clearly don't. Statυs (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply to Spa-Franks - I've checked some of those articles that you've listed. Josh Dubovie seems to be the only good example since he has done some notable activities beyond his participation, based on the content of his article. As for the other articles, I think that they really need a lot of expansion and improvement. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) - If you feel articles could do with a lot of expansion and improvements Bleubeatle, then why don't you do what we are suppose to do on Knowledge and help to improve them, rather than press the AfD button on them? In my opinion, for someone to just nominate an article for deletion rather than help to improve it is the lazy and cowardice way out of contributing collaboratively. Wesley Mouse 12:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Also Bleubeatle is now wanting to influence the closing of this and another article. While at the same time accusing me and Wesley of doing so--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - I only put those articles in to show an examples of one-time participants in Eurovision which have never been deleted and should not. Eurovision is usually full of people no one had ever heard of before the contest. If you feel an article needs to be improved then slapping an AfD on it is not the right answer. Indeed, at Project:Eurovision, we care about articles such as this and every contestant is involved in at least one template (in this case, {{Eurovision Song Contest 2005}}). This may be just personal preference, but I'd rather we have stubby articles for every contestant first, then improve them. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Notice to closing admin - This discussion has been contaminated severely seeing as there accusation of canvassing between myself and BabbaQ. And other users appear to be doing the same in order to gather support for mass-deletion of Eurovision articles. Diffs are as follows - 1, 2, and 3. People shouldn't cast accusations of canvassing, and then go about the same actions themselves. Wesley Mouse 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I agree fully with Wesley. If someone accuses another of canvassing which has been proven not to be the case, they should not then go and do it themselves to gather support for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Merge into Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 - It is unfortunate that this discussion has gone as far downhill as it has - I think there is a collective need to tone it down a notch or two. I don't agree with the opinion that this is an open and shut case of non-notability, but nor do I think that any kind of merge/re-direct/deletion should be resisted at all costs on fears of slippery slope into mass deletions. Notability isn't too much of an issue in itself here - on the path to Eurovision, it is somewhat implausible that a group/individual wouldn't be subject to coverage in a good number of third-party sources as needed by the WP:GNG - Eurovision news sites and coverage from a person's/group's home country could both meet this independently. Also, participation in Eurovision clearly passes criterion nine of WP:MUSICBIO, and probably ten and twelve as well. The real issue is WP:BIO1E and this part: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." I interpret this to mean that a re-direct to Eurovision Song Contest 2005 would be inappropriate as the contest was highly significant as was the group's role in it, with the need for a "separate article" defending the existence of Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Overall, since all the content in the group article could be in the Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005, and are essentially two articles covering the same subject, a merge is appropriate. However, I must emphasise that merges such as this should not be across the board, but done on a case-by-case basis, and this AfD clearly should not be setting a precedent to do the former, as there are many participants which do justify separate bios - I will emphasize that this should be assessed based on what is known about them and the sources available e.t.c. - I don't see the current state of the articles as relevant, per WP:POTENTIAL. CT Cooper · talk 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge content to the Estonia Eurovision article - Due to the nature of Eurovision, simply being involved does not assure a band would have any long-lasting career. (Today, this would be the equivalent of saying any contestant of American Idol or other equivalent talent show is immediately notable - which is not. Winners and breakouts (aka Susan Boyle), yes, but not each contestant). We look for enduring coverage around the time the band actually existed, and the article shows little that can't be covered in the Estonia Eurovision article. Flash-in-the-pan musical groups do not always get articles on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It is not the point. Being nationally selected by a country to represent it at the world biggest televised music compeititon is within WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The list given at WP:MUSIC are conditions for the presumption of notability as to allow the article to be created and expanded. Given that the group is now defunct, so no new sources will be coming about, and this appears to be all there is to say about the group (outside of the actual EuroV contest), challenging that presumption is completely acceptable within WP:N. There is no automatic allowance for an article for any topic period. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Since the group has no notability outside the event covered by this page, having two articles is clearly redundant. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 - Changing my original !vote from keep to merge. In hindsight of what has been said (albeit some harsh comments aimed at myself too) a merger does seem more plausible rather than a complete deletion. A lot of the guidances quoted appear to conflict with each other, with some links backing-up a deletion, and some backing-up a keep. This causes great concerns to myself personally as having conflicting guidelines leaves situations open to interpretation or even loopholes within the system, and that isn't cooperative nor helpful to any user old or new. What may be perceived as an overall solution to and prevention of future scenarios like this from reoccurring would be for some sort of medcab or request for comment within WP:EURO to establish a future president for articles relating to Eurovision participants/songs. Wesley Mouse 14:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Newcastle Kart Raceway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG, non-notable junior sports venue. Falcadore (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Hold on, it hosts Pro Gearbox, Pro Light and Pro Junior races in the stars of karting, plus clubman and club choice events. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (AEST)
    None of which has been established as notable by Knowledge standards. --Falcadore (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Non-notable college a capella group, which are dime a dozen. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any of the myriad WP:MUSIC qualifications. Only sources are WP:SELFPUB or tangential mentions, not sufficient for notability standards. GrapedApe (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Bobby Miller (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (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)
    (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)

    Unable to find reliable, secondary sources for this musician that evidence notability under WP:GNG. I think this and the related this is probably him, but there's another soul-related Bobby Miller (or Bobby was recording when he was ten). The Sony release, even temporarily might get him half way to notability under the MUSICBIO (5), but I'm not sure any of the other albums fit the other half of what's needed there. Additional sources and thoughts welcomed. j⚛e decker 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Also bundling in the albums noted by So God created Manchester, Players Never Die, The Whole Theory, Smokin' (Bobby Miller album), and Meditation (Bobby Miller album) --j⚛e decker 04:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow  00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed. Done. --j⚛e decker 04:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Dubsidia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable, no refs, fails musicbio, IP removing CSD tags GregJackP Boomer! 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Speedy Delete - As it fails the notability guidelines for bands. I retagged it as a Speedy in the hopes that it will be deleted before the IP can remove the tag again. Rorshacma (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete, but not speedily. There are claims of releases on important labels (although I couldn't verify this) and working with major artists here, so I don't feel speedy deletion is appropriate. I couldn't find anything to convince me that they are yet notable enough for an article, however, so delete as not yet sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (It was me who declined the speedy deletion.) There is evidence that Moby admires them so it is not inconceivable that he is collaborating with them. But a search through Google News and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles has not turned up any reliable sources that would help me to argue for WP:GNG notability, so I am left recommending delete in the absence of sources. Paul Erik 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. We're fortunate to have some very intelligent people weighing in here and (for the most part) the arguments on each side have their merits. I don't feel that a consensus has been reached on the depth of the sourcing or the acceptability of the article's neutrality. No prejudice towards further discussion about rename/merge/redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    POV fork of Attraction to transgender people. Duplicates material there. Fork is created by a single-purpose account who is an activist minority in the mental health field known for attempting to create and promote an ever-growing list of "paraphilias." See work by Karen Franklin, Vernon Rosario and others for details on this controversy. Recommend merge and redirect to reinstate redirect. Jokestress (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Keep. Extremely WP:POINTy nomination. Leak of user:Jokestress' well-documented off-wiki campaign. I recommend she join me in banning ourselves from that page, with user page pledges, to prevent further disruption. Moreover, the claims that editor makes about my believes are false, indeed they are BLP violations, that I request she redact. — James Cantor (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment. This article is cut and pasted from Transfan. Terms like these are scientifically reifying and pathologizing, per Rosario and many others. Article creator has classified it as a paraphilia, part of his long-running attempts to promote spurious paraphilias here and offsite. "Men sexually interested in transwomen" is the formal term used by legitimate researchers these days. This can be and is all covered at Attraction to transgender people]. Jokestress (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Merge Attraction to transgender people into Gynandromorphophilia. Following up on the above MoS/Med policy to use the technical rather than slang terms (this being an encyclopedia, and all), the professional peer reviewed RS's also use gynandromorphophilia. revealed 14 citations, but got zero. Although there are individual authors publishing books expressing their personal views about what the politically correct term should be, the highest regarded RS's use gynandromorphophilia. Slang terms for gynandromorphophilia (and a note about their inappropriateness) would be an important subsection to include.— James Cantor (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment This is yet another attempt by this editor to medicalize a common form of attraction with an obscure term used by an activist minority in the mental health field, a little pocket of pathological science fixated on the concept of paraphilia. We use value-neutral, non-pathologizing terms here, not obscure neologisms that cast a common sexual interest/orientation as a mental illness or medical condition or disease. This doesn't fall under MoS/Med because medicalizing this phenomenon is POV-pushing. This is discussed much more commonly as a sociological phenomenon than a medical one, with the exception of a few holdouts clinging to 20th century ideologies. There are many books and articles discussing this for every one that uses the quaint medicalized/reified terminology proposed as this article title. All can be covered under attraction to transgender people if we need a more generalized title for a move for Transfan. Jokestress (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. "Attraction to transgender people" is a neologism on a page that was created two hours ago. The phrase does not appear in a single one of the sources provided on that page. (Indeed, the sources on that page use the medical terminology.) A google search reveals no RS's with that phrase. Article length is irrelevant; the information there is poorly sourced and nonsourced. Any usable content there should be merged into the repeatedly RS-recognized term.— James Cantor (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment. This article should be about the phenomenon, not the many technical and non-technical terms which describe some aspects of it. We don't need a separate article for each term. We can cover all the bizarre suggestions made in academia over the years in one section in attraction to transgender people. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment. Jokestress says there are "many technical" terms; however, the RS's contain two technical terms. Whom to believe, whom to believe...? I agree that not every non-technical slang term proposed to every activist member of whatever group needs a page. "Attraction to transgender people" is exactly such a non-technical slang expression, included in not a single RS, neologized just today by exactly such an activist. None of this supercedes a medical article using medical terms to describe a medical phenomenon published in multiple medical RS's according to the MoS for medical articles.— James Cantor (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • gynandromorphophilia
    • gynemimetophilia
    • Andromimetophilia / androminetophilia
    • Men sexually interested in transwomen (MSTW)
    There's also terms like "Men who have sex with transgender women" and "sexually attracted to transgender individuals." All these many terms for similar phenomena should be covered in one article. There's not enough on any one specific term to merit a standalone. We've had this phenomenon vs. term discussion many times before. An activist minority in the mental health field does not dictate what this phenomenon is called, and the convoluted terms used by a couple of "experts" have never caught on. I believe most people who identify as having this interest use the term admirer. All this can be covered at the main article. Jokestress (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. You're losing track of your own kitchen sinking. This page is about "gyndandromorphophilia", which has only a single synonym ("gynemimetophilia"). That you on your own created broader pages with vaguer (and entirely non-RS'ed) terms is neither here nor there for this page. In fact, it argues for this focussed, highly sourced page to which your and other neologisms should be redirected. As I said before, I believe WP would be better of if you and I swore off this page. WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HOUND, and WP:POINT all apply.— James Cantor (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Got RS's for any of that? Political Correctness is what it is, but that does not mean that one can just take a sexual concept, add "and affectional" (which not a single RS contains), create a new phrase (which not a single RS contains and which is suddenly missing any reference to sex) and claim the original, sexual RS's still to be supporting the new name/definition. These changes are merely to hide/dilute that pesky, unpopular sex stuff, which many alternative communities are afraid might make them look bad. (Personally, I think the sexual aspects of sexual minorities should be embraced and celebrated, not bowdlerized from WP.)— James Cantor (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. "I love the smell of reductionism in the evening…" re: WP:RS… how about "Blossom of Bone"? It addresses the history of "spirituality" expressed by "homosexual and gender variant men", but IMO somewhat suppresses the whole hard core sex (as well as transsexualism, and transfan "services") aspect of the pagan religious devotions it discusses? And for another example, here's Julia Serano raving about the strong attraction she feels for trans women in her "Love Rant" - well, because we're such damned awesome human beings?
    While some male "admirers" of trans women tend to fetishize us for our femininity or our imagined sexual submissiveness, I find trans women hot because we are anything but docile or demure.…
    At this point in our conversation, my friend tried to play what he probably thought was his trump card. He asked me, "Well, what if you found out that the trans woman you were attracted to still had a penis?"
    I laughed and replied that I am attracted to people, not disembodied body parts.
    — Julia Serano, ''Whipping Girl, p. 278-9
    I expect you to respond that neither of these is a valid WP:RS here - according to WP:MEDRS. That's precisely the point - see WP:NOTDIC: Knowledge is neither a medical dictionary nor a specialized medical encyclopedia, and moreover these "sexual preferences", though also investigated by sexologists, are typically expressed in conjunction with certain social and cultural practices which are a subject of study by scholars in other fields, as well as individual experiences published in WP:RS outside of the cultic arena of "academic sexology", and are not "all about sex as it is understood by professional sexologists". If you focus only on the work of sexologists here, redirecting "slang" (i.e., the common English usage) such as "transfan" here, this article is (and will remain) 1) profoundly misleading and 2) a stub.
    Finally: I see Knowledge:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Naming conventions invoked above by James Cantor to support "gynandromorphophilia" as the only appropriate title - and focus of attention - for an article on this topic. Exactly what disease, disorder, or syndrome is supposed to exist here? I believe it's the case that the term "gynandromorphophilia" does not in itself imply the presence of a psychological disorder - "paraphilias" in the DSM-V will not be automatically associated with psychopathology - so how is this supposed to come under the rubric of "Medicine-related articles"? Medicine - "Medicine is the applied science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." Where's the disease?
    And um, James (if I may be familiar), it's not hard to figure out that I don't do "PC". At all. "Hi, I'm bonze anne blayk - and I'm the fa'afafine of the group!" - retrospective lols - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Well, at least you are making it clear for the closing admin that refusals here are about personal ideologies and not the actual RS's...and that the comments are being made already knowing they are counter to what the policies say...— James Cantor (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. (Please see James Cantors' original comment before he edited it to make it "more to the point"… rather than being another rather blatant example of the "insult art" and cheap debating tactics he tends to practice as an editor here, contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This was my response to the original comment, which remains pertinent even though his comment has been "cleaned up" in his self-edit - which was made just before I attempted to post this response.)
    That's a charming one-liner, User:James Cantor, but "you have validated my point" is merely an assertion, and a weak debating tactic, not a solid counter-argument. As I stated above: you're going to deny that WP:RS sources are WP:RS sources, hoping that other editors will ignore the distinctions between WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.
    Again I ask: How does an article which is not about a "disease" fall under the rubric of "Medicine-related articles", where the higher standards of WP:MEDRS rightly apply?
    And I ask: is "gynandromorphophilia" a disease? Or not?
    This is not an "ideological" question. It's a medical question. - bonze blayk (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Bonze blayk, WP:MED and WP:MEDRS don't only apply to topics dealing with disease. Even Knowledge:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles shows other topics that fall under the WP:MED topic. And as was stated at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine, "some people would say that all sexual orientations/preferences fall within the medical specialty of psychiatry." 109.123.127.204 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect as above Sorry I'm not persuaded that this is any more than another word being created/used when none is needed. Blanchard is known to have, shall we say, less than mainstream ideas about gender and sexuality issues and this seems like a way of bolstering their read on a subject in the world's biggest encyclopedia. Insomesia (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Do you have a WP-based opinion? (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT?) Blanchard coined the word 20 years ago and is now retired. Being in WP isn't exactly going to get mentioned at any tenure meetings, but it is still being used by contemporary RS's. That it is not the word being used by whatever branch of the Political Correctness police is irrelevant to WP. One cannot say that Blanchard's ideas are not mainstream among experts when Blanchard keeps getting elected president of sex research groups and to head the DSM section on this topic. — James Cantor (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about me? I have a vested interest here? How, exactly, do I benefit? I mean, how do I benefit in a way that does not imply re-writing WP:COI to say something entirely different from what it does? And (for those who hadn't noticed already), I created a page identical to this one using John Money's term ("gynandromorphophilia"). If I create two equal and opposing pages (one each on the two RS terms for this topic)...wait...who am I promoting again?— James Cantor (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I actually didn't realize you had written this but I do support the general nomination rationale. I have see numerous discussions and whenever Blanchard et al is brought up I assume it will be a protracted circular debate which a cynic might think is meant to wear the opposition down. So you can focus more on others who may be swayed let's just agree that neither of us are likely to change our opinions on this matter. I don't think this is a notable term at all and I'm not interested in having an extended argument. Insomesia (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    1. www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html
    • Keep. Article seems well referenced, and although none of the references are available for online evaluation, the titles suggest they at least aren't merely tangentially discussing the subject but do in fact support the subject's existence and notability. As for the strong opposition to this subject, I perceive vaguely politics of political correctness and not so much salient arguments. I'm affording article creator the benefit of the doubt for now. I need clearer arguments that I can actually understand from the opposition before I can earnestly consider acceding their reasons for deletion. __meco (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
      • None of the sources seem to be about this term, some of the sources only mention the term, and some don't mention it at all. Insomesia (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment. As I said earlier, we don’t need a separate article for every term describing the phenomenon of attraction to transgender people. This can and should all be covered in one article. We have consensus precedent at attraction to disability in terms of article naming. All of the formal and informal terms are currently covered at attraction to transgender people. Per Google books:
    • "tranny chaser" "trannie chaser" "transie chaser" 173
    • "gynemimetophilia" "gynemimetophile" 151
    • “andromimetophilia” “andromimetophile” 138
    • "admirer" about 100
    • "transfan" 51
    • "gynandromorphophilia" "gynandromorphophilic" "gynandromorphophile" 27
    • Men sexually interested in transwomen 6
    Should we cover all these? Yes. Should we cover them all separately? No. There are a whole bunch of other terms and aspects of this phenomenon, like tranny hawk, attraction to “shemales,” transie-sniffers, kai-kai/ki-ki, toms and dees, etc. etc. Some of the people writing about this phenomenon see trans people or the attraction to them as a medical condition to be cured through coercion, even starting as children. See this week’s New York Times for details on how families and society are rejecting this medicalizing/pathologizing impulse among these “experts” and avoiding them altogether.
    The real issue here is that these medicalizing and pathologizing terminologies contitute a POV fork. There are people who see this phenomenon as a disorder/disease/medical condition, and people who see it as a common form of attraction and part of society. Knowledge should present both views in one article and not fork the two POVs. Jokestress (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    Is something on that page pathologizing? Is pregnancy not both a medical topic and a natural condition? And where exactly did someone's WP-valid view get removed?
    All POISON and ancient BATTLEGROUND. MOS:MED says to put the page under it's technical name, whereas some folks want a slang or their own name used; so, one would have to argue against any/every medical aspect to escape the MOSMED policy.
    — James Cantor (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    Claiming that sexual attraction to an entire demographic of humans is a paraphilia is by definition pathologizing. A paraphilia is defined as attraction to "non-human objects, the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, children, or non-consenting persons." Which of those is "gynandromorphophilia"? Are trans people non-human objects, or are they suffering/causing suffering? If it's something else on the list, please enlighten us. Claiming attraction to trans women is a medical condition is just like conservatives who claim same-sex attraction is a medical condition. See medical gaze for the philosophical problems with this sort of myopic ideology. Separating the medicalized conceptualizations from the larger phenomenon is textbook POV forking. Jokestress (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's one definition, not the only possible definition. Our article on the subject describes it as "sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation", which would encompass this as well as many partialisms, which are not included in the definition you quote above, since they're "human objects", but which are explicitly named as paraphilias in the source that your definition comes from (PMID 19779971). That might be why the words generally including appear immediately before where you started quoting the source.
    But none of that actually matters: if the DSM (or any other reliable source) is pathologizing this (or anything else) inappropriately, then we shouldn't hush up their choices by merging away their POV. We should follow the sources, even if a source's POV is obnoxious to the affected people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's true that the POV should be included in the current article, but the question is whether it merits a separate article, or whether that would just be a POV fork. I can only see two articles in PubMed that use this term, one of them from 1993 by Ray Blanchard, who coined the term, and a 2008 Hungarian article about gender identity disorder. Is it really the commonly used medical term, per WP:MOSMED ("the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources")? SlimVirgin 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, this gets to the heart of the problem. There are two POVs: taking one form, there are people who believe the phenomenon of male attraction to trans women is a type of heterosexual interest (it's generally considered a straight specialty market in the porn industry and is the 4th largest category of porn site). Then there are people (many of whom are gay males) who believe that male attraction to trans women is not "normative stimulation," but somehow male attraction to males is "normative stimulation." It's hair-splitting and POV-pushing to fork the one POV from the other. I certainly understand the dismissive impulse of people like Dan Savage and Michael Musto, who probably feel their hard-earned rights are threatened by other sex and gender minorities. I understand why the gay rights movement threw age of consent activists under the bus for political expediency. I get why some gay men spend their lives trying to prove there's no connection between homosexuality and paraphilia. However, our goal here is to present information where all points of view are contained in one article. There are people who think this is a medical issue/disease/mental illness and people who see it as a sociological, ethical, and/or philosophical phenomenon. People who see the world through a medical lens have one point of view which should not be split off like this. Jokestress (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep think Jokestress's analysis is excellent, and the best explanation of these problems that I have seen here, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion. When a subject is treated differently by different areas of human experience, it is not a prohibited POV fork to have more than one article, because the conceptual models of the same phenomena can be incompatible. Those approaches to psychology that consider it one of the social sciences rather than the biological sciences are perhaps the prime example of this, and I would not like to favor either one. We favor science over pseudoscience, but we do not favor one branch of learning over another. In the past we have sometimes attempted to sandwich disparate items under a heading which represents the preference of the majority of people here, and I think this is wrong and prejudicial.Sexology is an academic subject, and should be covered accordingly. Some (perhaps most, actually) aspects of it are also of non-academic interest, and those aspects may need to be covered separately. I see no reason why this article under its present title and Transfan cannot both exist. One reason for doing it would be precisely to avoid problems of just what is a neutral pov, when different people have very different ideas of that.
    Dealing with another part of the problem, the perceived insult in the terminology used, I copy what I regard as an equally clear statement from James Cantor's talk p., which expresses what I too think but have not been able to properly word: "I've always thought it unfortunate that paraphilias are still so stigmatized that everyone wants to avoid being counted as one. Personally, I prefer embracing one's differences from the norm rather than re-defining "normal" to include whatever one's make-up is. We cannot appreciate our diversity by denying our differences." DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    You are welcome to your interpretation, but I feel I should be more clear if that's what you took from my analysis. It's not just that the terminology is a problem in terms of accuracy (a gynandromorph according to hard science is an animal with intersex traits or chimerism). The conceptualization that someone's attractions are an "error," whether they are gay, or prefer to date fat women, or disabled guys, genderqueer people, or other types of people who are not "phenotypically normal," is the source of the stigmatization. People in kink and fetish communities are generally quite happy to be counted as members of their sexual minorities and celebrate their diversity. Most of them take issue with being called sick, deviant, mentally disordered, abnormal, or other pathologizing adjectives applied by the people who make up these terms. It's not that paraphilias are stigmatized. It's that the very concept of "paraphilia" is stigmatizing. As noted in that article, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances." This disease model of human sexual diversity, with its emphasis on attraction to only those who are "phenotypically normal," is the entire reason no one wants to be associated with the concept. It's body fascism, plain and simple. Lawyers have used the concept of "paraphilia" to try to deny trans women health service reimbursement. James Cantor is well aware of these problems yet continues to be among the foremost proponents of perpetuating this ideology, both here and off-wiki. The quote you cite is sophistry, in my opinion. "Normal" and "normative" get redefined all the time. We are almost 40 years out from the depathologization of homosexuality, and there are still celebrities who hesitate being counted as LGBT because the stink of pathology takes that long to fade away as we move toward normalization. Podophilia redirects to Foot fetishism because we don't need separate articles for the same phenomenon. There's plenty of precedent here for non-forked content. Jokestress (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    1. Because I never said (and don’t actually hold) the views Jokestress says (at the same time as she tells everyone to ignore what I actually DID say and DO believe), there isn’t really anything here for me to defend.
    2. Clearly, Jokestress' WP:POINTy nomination of this article has nothing to do with any political divide between whichever gay folks and whichever trans folks. Indeed, one of the primary supporters/authors about gynandromorphophilia (if not the primary supporter) is Anne Lawrence, who is herself a well-accomplished, openly trans sexologist. It’s just a divide with Jokestress’ preferred flavor of political correctness.
    3. The only relevant part is that this is obviously not about WP, but about Jokestress’ feelings regarding whatever political landscape (if only imagined) and regarding her presumptions about my feelings (if quite mistaken).
    Although I have gotten to know Dan Savage, I cannot speak for him or Musto…and I recommend Jokestress not do so either.
    — James Cantor (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    PS- I do have to smile at how far I have come in Jokestress’ eyes. When I started editing WP, she told people I should be dismissed as non-notable. Now, not long after, I am a foremost promoter, mentioned together with Dan Savage and Michael Musto...although, now, I should be dismissed for that reason instead….
    — James Cantor (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    My assessment of your notability remains unchanged. I was referring to Karen Franklin's and Allen Frances' assessments of your foremost role in promoting spurious paraphilias like the one we are discussing here. I'll remind you this is not a forum for discussing your level of notability, unless it's specifically in relation to the deletion discussion. Which it isn't. Jokestress (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. There is a consensus to delete with policy-based arguments though it's narrow. With apologies to Rlendog for their good work, the coverage outside of the tragic events is deemed to not add up to notabilty per GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    O. J. Murdock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Never played a pro game and his college career was not distinguished. Only news coverage WP:ROUTINE. As for his tragic death, WP:NOTNEWS applies....William 22:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep While no doubt his death has likely sparked interest in the news, I'm finding coverage back to his high school days as a sprinter. It seems he has some significant coverage after all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting - and they're not just stats and the like? Do you have links to those? Zujua (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete I looked at the existing news stories in which he's mentioned and IMHO he simply doesn't meet the notability guidelines per WP:NGRIDIRON (pro football/NFL players), WP:NCOLLATH (college athletes) or high school athletes. Clearly, he's not notable based on his NFL career alone, particularly because he never played in a game. His college career was not distinguished. And although he was a great high school athlete, even being named Male High School Athlete of the Year by the Tampa Tribune in 2005 , all the coverage about him was local, which, by rule, must be excluded from consideration when determining notability. If all high school star athletes were by default considered notable, then Knowledge would continually be adding tens of thousands of articles for all of them. I think perhaps the mere fact that we would stretch to consider Murdock's high school career as a basis for determining notability is the strongest evidence that he is in fact not notable. And it goes without saying, per rule, that the reporting of his unfortunate death, in and of itself, also does not make him notable. I wish he had played in at least one NFL game so that this discussion wouldn't be necessary. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep per WP:GNG. As that section of the guideline notes, GNG establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. But unlike 76.189.114.163, I don't think its a problem that he never played an NFL game. I think that it is the combination of his somewhat troubled personal life, his professional-quality athletic career (including the track accomplishments mentioned by Paul McDonald), and his high profile suicide (it made news front-page on cnn.com as opposed to just sportsillustrated.cnn.com) make the subject notable. One admittedly sad way of looking at it is that the suicide clinches notability in the same way that playing in one NFL game would have. 72.244.204.202 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    The guidelines I, and the nominator, referred to are the applicable and vital subsets of WP:GNG that must be looked at when trying to determine notability. Although User 72 believes it is not a problem that Murdock never played in an NFL game, the reality is that it is a big problem. Per guideline 1 of WP:NGGRIDIRON, notability would be established for an NFL player IF the person has "appeared in at least one regular season or post season game." That's a low standard for NFL players, but Murdock still didn't meet it. Most importantly, User 72 has a major flaw in his rationale: He mistakenly believes that notability can be established by combining multiple non-significant (non-notable) events. But the fact is that if none of those events, individually, establishes notability, then they do not establish it when they are combined. Encyclopedically, his troubled life is of no significance in this regard. As the notability guidelines make clear, terms like "professional-quality athletic career" would not be necessary if one were truly notable. In any case, Murdock's track career was amateur. And again, his suicide has absolutely no impact when determining his notability, which needed to be established prior to his death. Therefore, his suicide in no way "clinches," nor even helps to establish, his notability. Each applicable guideline for which his notability is being considered (pro, college and high school athletes) are the only criteria that can be considered. WP:GNG is merely a basic starting point. Murdock was a very good high school and college athlete, but his career in them was simply not distinguished (in an encyclopedic notability sense). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Not playing in the NFL just means that he didn't achieve notability by playing in the NFL. Subjects can earn notability through many other paths, such as WP:ABELINCOLN. I think this subject has done that through WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Of course it can be earned through different paths. But none of Murdock's paths give him notability. He doesn't qualify under the general WP:GNG guidelines or under the more specific guidelines most applicable to him, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH or high school athletes. I wish I could vote to keep the article, but I've read everything available on him and he just isn't notable. Based on my research, this is an easy call. But if someone can provide links that establish his notability, I'll be happy to change my vote. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete Reads more like someone needed to write it for their own personal therapy David Unit (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - fails WP:GNG, and doesn't appear notable via WP:NGRIDIRON either. Tragic, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. GiantSnowman 10:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Leaning keep per WP:GNG. I can't see how it fails the GNG criteria. 1) sources address the subject directly in detail: The two cited sources at CNN and USA Today do this. These are not trivial mentions; they're directly about the subject of the article. 2) Reliability: these sources are no doubt reliable; they're national news outlets. 3) Sources: The sources are obviously secondary. 4) Independent of the subject: These sources clearly aren't the subject's family, friends or anyone else close to him; they're national news outlets. 5) Presumed: This is where the debate should be...this isn't about GNG, really, but about perhaps what Knowledge is not. To recap, this fails WP:NGRIDIRON no question and passes WP:GNG up to the fifth criterion. But does it pass WP:NOTMEMORIAL? I'm inclined to say it does, because this is not a memorial in the usual sense. I think because the player was a member of an NFL team at the time of his death, his demise adds to his notability. It may also be premature to delete the article because his notability could be enhanced if it turns out his suicide was in some way related to hits/concussions sustained in football: several recent cases of suicides have highlighted the head trauma that can result from playing the sport, although this player is younger than the others.--Batard0 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    The problem is that although he may appear to pass WP:GNG because of the coverage about his suicide, he fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY, which says "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Sadly, the coverage of his suicide is the only high-profile coverage he's ever had. Before that, he was in fact low-profile and not notable. And to your other point about concussions, Knowledge doesn't allow keeping an article solely based on pure speculation about a possible future occurrence that might make the topic notable. The topic must CURRENTLY be notable. If this article is deleted, it can always be re-added if notability is later established. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think it's a borderline case. I agree with the point that he is not notable other than for his suicide (I think we can all agree on this), but would also note the language that you quote: if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. So the question is: is this person likely to remain a low-profile individual? If he is likely to remain low profile, I agree with deletion. If not (perhaps because of pure speculation about a future occurrence that might make the topic notable), it should be kept. The language likely to remain contradicts your contention that "Knowledge doesn't allow keeping an article solely based on pure speculation about a possible future occurrence that might make the topic notable". If it were the case that Knowledge required a topic to be currently notable, the likelihood of a person becoming notable wouldn't be part of any policy. Are there any citations to policies that state explicitly that Knowledge doesn't allow this?--Batard0 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    The suicide is already being discussed in the context not of one single event, but in the context a series of suicides among NFL players. See, for example, here. Adding to this the coverage he received from reliable sources as a track star and as a future NFL prospect, I think there is a case that he's notable. I personally don't have a problem with the article's deletion and the incorporation of information about him in, say, an article or list on player safety issues/suicides among NFL players, but I'm still struggling to find the policy that definitively says he's not notable. Many people seem to be objecting on WP:NGRIDIRON grounds without considering the obvious alternatives establishing notability. That objection alone isn't enough to make him not notable.--Batard0 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Murdock's death will likely be used as a reference point for future discussions of mental health by the NFL and various pundits/researchers. The reason that he committed suicide is not known at this time but future notability may be established if his death is determined to be the result of depression caused by concussive impacts and is thus used as a building block to new player health programs. At this time his article is not notable as Knowledge does not serve the purpose of indexing everyone on a professional sports roster but notability could be established in the coming months based on next steps taken by the NFL. Boston2austin (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Knowledge is not a Crystal ball....William 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    This vote is to decide one issue: Is the subject currently notable? Period. All this talk of his suicide somehow possibly being connected to issues relating to mental health and concussions is pure speculation. As you correctly stated, the "reason that he committed suicide is not known at this time" and, most importantly, "at this time his article is not notable." You acknowledged that the subject is not currently notable, so you therefore should be voting to delete it. We're not voting based on what the subject's status MIGHT be in the future. We can't say, "Hey, let's wait three months to see if he becomes notable." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - the coverage on this seems to be borderline non-routine coverage, but I can't imagine it really being of encyclopedic interest unless, as Boston2austin and others suggest, it may be used as a subject of some study of mental health, etc., but even in that case, it probably would be included in that mental health-related article and not as a standalone. Zujua (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Changing !vote to Redirect to History of the Tennessee Titans, per discussion by Jax 0677 et al below. Zujua (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Murdock never played in a game for them. Not even a preseason game....William 13:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, but this vote is to determine if the subject is notable. And of course a non-notable subject cannot be redirected. Also, he never played in a game anyway. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    AFD are not votes. Secondly, arguing for a redirect instead of a deletion is perfectly acceptable. I don't agree with a redirect in this case, but any editor can propose a redirect as an option other than Keep or Delete....William 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry. I meant discussion, not vote. And my point is that non-notability overrides a redirect. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - Redirects are cheap. The statement that "a non-notable subject cannot be redirected" is not true (or at least not widely accepted). Many musicians such as Chris Kael, Jeff Worley and Maria Brink have links to their musical ensembles. Also,
    1. What part of WP:R#DELETE is met?
    2. What part of WP:R#KEEP besides Section 6 is not supported here? There is a "useful page history", " the creation of duplicate articles less likely", " searches on certain terms" (i.e. Tennessee Titans) and "someone them useful". The suicide could potentially be talked about at Tennessee Titans, as WP:N does "not limit the content of an article or list". I feel that "Tennessee Titans" is the best place to which the article can be redirected.
    3. Additionally, I believe that the title is neutral.
    Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'll correct my statement about non-notable subjects not being redirected. A non-notable band member being redirected to the band's article (assuming the band is notable) is fine because he/she obviously played at least one gig with that band, and the names of all the band's current and former members are worthy of inclusion. But Murdock never played a "gig" (game) with the Titans. I wish that simply being on the roster of a pro sports team was enough to establish notability, but unfortunately it isn't. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comment - Unless the three bullet points above can be addressed, the article should be redirected (or kept). On a side note, the only reason this has received national coverage is because Murdock was "signed by the Tennessee Titans of the National Football League (NFL) as an undrafted free agent".--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think this kind of information would be appropriate in the main Tennessee Titans page, but would perhaps be better suited in a subpage like History of the Tennessee Titans (And/or to sub-sub page 2012 Tennessee Titans season). Changing my !vote as such per your argument. Zujua (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    You're putting the cart before the horse. WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#KEEP only apply to EXISTING redirects. So they're not applicable to the Murdock article. To determine if a redirect is even warranted, the purposes of redirects must first be considered. Which criteria on the listed purposes warrants a redirect? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    Reply - Murdock is a " or other which described or listed within a wider article". Had I known about this article before it was nominated for AfD, I could have redirected it to History of the Tennessee Titans, but doing so NOW would not be in line with consensus. Additionally, Knowledge:R#Purposes_of_redirects states, and I quote, "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include ...". This implies "but not limited to the following". Last and definitely not least, while he was alive Murdock could have been listed at Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster or 2012_Tennessee_Titans_season#Current_roster under "Reserve Lists".--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, Murdock was listed at Template:Tennessee Titans roster under his correct status when he was alive.
    From a historical perspective (WP:RECENTISM), Murdock's suicide should not be included at History of the Tennessee Titans, as he did not play for them and he probably would not have been a contributor to their team in the future. The article should either be kept as a standalone article or deleted, not redirected or merged, since his notability (or lack thereof) can only be limited to his own article. I tried removing the borderline off-topic content from History of the Tennessee Titans#2012, but I was reverted and told to refer to this discussion, which, if I might add, does not have consensus yet. Should this article be deleted and redirected, I plan to bring the redirect to WP:RFD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    Then let's address the redirect here.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    I did. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - If an article already exists, then a redirect from that article is cheap. Case in point, Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan was changed from an article to redirect to Pete_Hoekstra#2012_U.S._Senate_election.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    Where would this article be redirected to? No single aspect of his life (college career, professional career, or death) is notable enough to even warrant more than a passing mention in any article (other than this one if it's kept). In the case you reference, an event not notable enough on its own was redirected to the main topic. Murdock's biography is not a subtopic to a main topic here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Reply - Because "redirects are CHEAP", "in a subpage like History of the Tennessee Titans (And/or to sub-sub page 2012 Tennessee Titans season)". BTW Eagles247, it says "Please add new comments below this notice", but you added a comment above the notice after the fact.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    I am replying to your comment, so it goes in the place I put it. Please continue to use that essay as an end-all be-all to this discussion, it is really addressing the arguments I brought up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, WP doesn't allow what you want to do - combining the different parts of someone's life to establish notability, which is about quality, not quantity. If none of the individual parts of his life can establish notability, then he's not notable. Also, local-only coverage cannot be used to establish an athlete's notability anyway. Otherwise, every local star athlete would be notable. Both the sources you cited are from his local area. The high school and college careers are clearly not notable. And the pro career, by rule, is not notable because he never played in a game. This is the reason why thousands of athletes who were invited to the training camps of pro teams do not have articles. I wish Murdock had played in a game so his notability would be established. And, as you acknowledged, the suicide (sadly) is not notable. Hey, my brother was a star baseball and basketball player in high school and college, and was in the local papers a lot. And so were some of his teammates. But it was all local stardom; like a big fish in a small pond. So unfortunately, he doesn't get his own Wiki article either. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    Knowledge doesn't allow -- No policy is being violated. You're over-stretching the argument here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    "Unfortunately, WP doesn't allow what you want to do - combining the different parts of someone's life to establish notability..." Which guideline or policy says that? WP:N says that notability is based on significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Murdock meets that easily now. WP:BLP1E makes an exception for coverage received for a single event. But some of Murdock's reliably sourced coverage is for events other than his suicide, and hence that exception doesn't come into play. Rlendog (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete - Let's break this down, shall we? Knowledge is not a memorial, so let's strip sentiment away... Never played in a pro game, so no low bar admission as a fully professional athlete. A very typical collegiate career, no special consideration there. Nor does committing suicide solve the notability issue. Routine coverage. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. Carrite and others above have the right idea . . . subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. His unfortunate death does not qualify for special consideration per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even if the coverage might otherwise be enough to satisfy WP:GNG because his notoriety/notability is based on the single event of his death, which is disqualified per WP:ONEEVENT. Several "keep" editors above mentioned coverage of the subject's high school and college sports career sufficiently in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG. Sorry, but I don't see it; everything I found in a Google News Archive search varies from trivial mentions to routine post-game coverage. If anyone has found non-trivial, non-routine, in-depth coverage of the subject for his high school and college sports careers, I suggest you post links to the articles. Otherwise, this article is on greased skids to deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Some people stated previously that redirects are only cheap if they exist already. Therefore, I created a redirect to History of the Tennessee Titans#2012 and changed it back to what it was before. Now the redirect "exists", and is "cheap" to keep. Therefore, this article should be redirected in a similar manner to Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan. If not, my three bullet points above need to be addressed.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep - IMHO, this is best considered either from WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. The only thing WP:NGRIDIRON contributes is a bright line about playing in an NFL game, which Murdock didn't. So we are looking at whether he is the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
    It's easy to find legitimate secondary sources:
    More than a dozen secondary sources on Murdock
    Earlier comments note these sources:
    1. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/florida-murdock-suicide
    2. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--football-player-suicide-oj-murdock.html (NFL implications)
    3. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5833981
    4. http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBOMOVLT8E.html
    5. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/04/Sports/Lean_in_the_right_dir.shtml (track/field)
    Simple searches identify others, covering various aspects of his life and career from a variety of perspectives:
    1. http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-oj-murdock-20120731,0,6229440.story
    2. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-10-18-notebook_x.htm
    3. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1279062-oj-murdocks-death-bigger-than-football-for-the-titans
    4. http://tulane.scout.com/a.z?s=202&p=2&c=728614
    5. http://frugivoremag.com/2012/07/another-football-player-apparently-commits-suicide-tennessee-titan-o-j-murdock-dead-at-25/
    6. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82af311a/article/oj-murdock-called-former-coach-before-death
    7. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/368324/20120730/oj-murdock-dead-dies-suicide-titans-tennessee.htm
    8. http://newsone.com/2027778/o-j-murdock-suicide-tennessee-titans/
    9. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/sports/football/nfl-football-roundup.html
    10. http://www.titansonline.com/team/roster/oj-murdock/84904cf6-58ec-4ac0-a85a-e6d76dad77fa/
    11. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/07/30/oj-murdock-dead-suicide.ap/index.html
    12. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120731/SPORTS01/307310032/Tennessee-Titans-shocked-by-receiver-O-J-Murdock-s-suicide
    1. http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/a-final-highlight-reel-for-ex-middleton-high-football-star-oj-murdock/1244622
    These sources seem to make him notable for his on-the-field talents (in sports beyond football, though its clear that football became his focus). They seem to make him notable for his off-the-field actions (the crimes he committed, the third suicide of an NFL player, after Junior Seau and whoever the other guy was). He was an undrafted free agent, not the most common way to get into the NFL--the Titan bio succinctly summarizes why they signed him.
    He's no WP:SLAMDUNK but after reading about him online I think Keep is the right conclusion. 67.101.5.14 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Comment. In response to to IP user 67.101.5.14's comment above and Batard's comments below, we apparently have some misunderstanding about what multiple "non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually means per WP:GNG. Here are my responses regarding the sources cited by others and mentioned by IP user 67.101.5.14 above:
    1. CNN article about suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He's not going to become notable because of his death if he wasn't already notable.
    2. Yahoo article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    3. WISTV article about subject's move to South Carolina track team--please see WP:ROUTINE. Such "transactional" articles/announcements do not constitute meaningful coverage of the subject. Otherwise, virtually every college football player and many more high school athletes would be notable.
    4. Tampa Tribune article about high school sports banquet--routine coverage about high school sports banquet--please see WP:ROUTINE.
    5. St. Petersburg Times article about high school track--solid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:V.
    . . . and the "new" sources found and cited by 67.101.5.14 immediately above:
    1. Los Angeles Times article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    2. Brief USA Today article about subject's arrest for shoplifting in larger CFB "transactions" column. Closer to routine than substantive. So, we're going to use "Police Beat" blurbs to establish athlete's notability, eh?
    3. BleacherReport.com fan blog about his suicide--fan blogs are not reliable sources per WP:RS.
    4. Scout.com recruiting blog--trivial mention in a source that probably does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS.
    5. Blog account of his suicide on Frugivore, an apparently self-published online magazine. Again, his death is not going to make him notable per WP:BIO1E and/or WP:BLP1E; doubtful whether blog source qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS in any event.
    6. NFL.com account of suicide; again coverage of suicide does not make him notable per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, NFL.com is not an independent source per WP:GNG and WP:RS for purposes of establishing the notability of an NFL football player.
    7. International Business Timnes article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    8. NewsOne.com article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    9. New York Times article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    10. Titansonline.com player bio--not an independent source per WP:GNG and WP:RS for purposes of establishing the notability of an Titans football player.
    11. Associated Press article on SportsIllustrated.com about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    12. Tennesseean article about his suicide--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    13. Obituary article published in Tampa Bay Times--please see WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
    By my count, of the 18 sources listed above, exactly one of them is not a story about his suicide AND provides "non-trivial" coverage of the subject in a "secondary source" that is "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Sorry, guys, but we are bootstrapping his suicide to artificially create notability that does not exist. This guy's career did not rise to the level of a notable high school or college athlete. If you have questions, ask. I am happy to review the applicable notability provisions with you. My critical review of the sources strongly suggests that the subject athlete and posited sources do not satisfy the applicable WP notability and sourcing guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Great explanation, Dirtlawyer. I tried several times previously explaining everything you said, but you did a much better job of it. Haha. Eighteen sources, 17 of them trivial. Exactly. Very sad story, but he's simply not notable. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    IP user 76.189.114.163, let me clarify my statement above: of those sources that are not about his death, only one is a non-trivial, non-routine, reliable source about his sports career. Several of the sources about his death are substantive reliable sources, but because they deal primarily (if not exclusively) with his death, they do not support his notability per the one-event rule of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BIO1E. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    I know what you meant. Haha. Did you read my prior posts? My wording was off. I must've been tired. Nice job. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    Except given that you acknowledge that there is a non-trivial, non-routine, reliable source about his sports career, the coverage of his suicide is no longer a single event for which he has received coverage per WP:BLP1E, it is a 2nd event for which he has received significant coverage. So BLP1E is no longer applicable. Not to mention that his legal issues have received more coverage than just a police blotter. There was a full St. Petersburg Times story about that as well. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Keep per my comments above. I could change my mind, but I won't until I've seen what I consider a clear-cut case for deletion citing relevant policy. WP:NGRIDIRON isn't a be-all and end-all for notability. It appears to meet WP:GNG.--Batard0 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Batard, WP:GRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH are only relevant as short-cuts for establishing a presumption of notability for professional football players and college athletes. The subject does not satisfy either WP:GRIDIRON or WP:COLLATH; therefore, if we are going to establish the subject's notability, it must be done under the harder-to-satisfy standards of WP:GNG, as well as the sourcing guidelines thereunder, to wit:
    • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
    • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
    • "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online]], and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
    • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
    • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.
    Let's be perfectly clear: this is an athlete whose primary claim to fame is that he committed suicide. He was not an All-American football player, he did not receive college all-conference recognition, he did not receive any sort of CFB national award, and he did not receive any meaningful media coverage of his college sports career. He was not selected in the NFL Draft, and never played a down in a regular season NFL game. Frankly, I'm shocked we're even talking about this. If the subject had not received national media coverage of his suicide, this would not even be a close call. Apart from those July 2012 articles covering his death which should be disqualified from supporting his notability per the single-event policy of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I count exactly one article that qualifies as a meaningful, reliable source, independent of the subject--and that is a discussion of his high school track career. If you actually review and comprehend the WP:GNG standards, this should be a clear delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed. If a redirect were created to Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster or 2012_Tennessee_Titans_season#Current_roster when Murdock was on injured reserve, I am sure the WP:CHEAP policy would apply, since this is a legitimate destination for the redirect.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Except that "coverage" does not get disqualified by BLP1E. BLP1E covers people whose coverage is entirely due to a single event, and says that they are not notable just because of that event (with a some exception for extremely major events, which is not applicable here). If all the coverage was for the suicide, I would probably agree with the BLP1E argument. But the suicide coverage is an addition to significant coverage for other things, which renders BLP1E inapplicable. Otherwise, someone with coverage for 100 events would be deemed non-notable because each was a single event. Rlendog (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    Rlendog, for the sake of argument, even if we accepting your argument at face value, there is absolutely no reason why this AfD must accept this article for inclusion. Please read WP:GNG, specifically the section regarding "presumed" (I have included the full text of GNG above). It states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." To my way of thinking,
    1 reliably sourced article about a high school track career
    +
    a handful of trivial or routine mentions about a college football career
    +
    a handful of routine articles about an arrest for shoplifting
    +
    reliably sourced articles about a suicide
    ≠
    encyclopedic content
    At the end of the day, even if the subject technically satisfies the standards of WP:GNG, we can still say there is not enough "there there" to support a stand-alone Knowledge article. Where is the encyclopedic content? What is the encyclopedic purpose in including a stand-alone article about this subject? To put it indelicately, are we really twisting ourselves into logical knots trying to justify keeping an article about a mediocre college football player, with a one-time arrest record for shoplifting, who committed suicide? How is Knowledge improved by the inclusion of this article? How is Knowledge harmed by its deletion?
    To repeat my earlier summary of the subject's sports career, he earned no conference or national recognition as a college football player, was not selected in the NFL Draft, and never played a down as a professional. Heck, he isn't even particularly noteworthy to the two college programs for which he played. Sad though his death may be, there is no "there there." Time to apply common sense and recognize what WP:GNG says: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Delete. The events are tragic, and there is significant coverage is of the suicide. However, if he hadn't committed suicide, we would not be having this discussion. Glrx (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑