Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 19 (Thu) September 18 (Wed) September 17 (Tue) More...

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

< 12 November	14 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Helen Boaden

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

Is the subject sufficiently of note (notable) independently in her own right, or is redirection to another article a better way? -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14. Snotbot t • c » 02:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG; certainly is notable. Just take a look on Google, there's The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Daily Telegraph, everything. Premature nomination, so perhaps even a "speedy keep". Article may not be the best, but person is still, again, notable, see WP:NOTABLE. TBr and ley 05:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The way that the article was previously written suggests something slightly different, with a fair dose of possible self- and insider-editing. Well, back in England, there was virtually none outside of the BBC who had actually heard of her, before this Jimmy Savile scandal. I remain undecided, neither keep, damn, nor re-direct. -- KC9TV 06:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Director of News at the BBC is a notable position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep -- Senior managers in BBC are certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 18 November 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 result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Mitchell (journalist)

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

Is the subject sufficiently of note (notable) independently in his own right, or is redirection to another article a better way? -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KC9TV 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14. Snotbot t • c » 02:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Head of news at the BBC sounds notable to me. And as a note to the nominator, a handful of delsort categories are fine. You've added far too many, some of which don't seem at all relevant (sexuality and gender-related? Why? UK is fine; England and Scotland are not required as well, etc). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Notable subject that certainly passes WP:GNG. TBr and ley 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep shows that he has risen to the higher ranks of BBC management and is thus notable. Unfortunately, the article at present provides little detail of his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Auston Hughes

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

Notability has not been established. Only sources listed are self published, in fact the article itself is also self published (if the username of the creator is anything to go by). Listed shows as having appeared in are not on Knowledge (XXG). -- Patchy1 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete – lacks independent sources and fails the notability guidelines as the productions themselves do not appear notable (they don't even have articles). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this person satisfies WP:ENT, WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO at this time. Gongshow 20:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Zero coverage in any sources. The show that he starred in seems to be so obscure as to completely evade my google-fu. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dollheads

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

Non-notable band. Speedy declined, presumably on the assertion that this is a side project of "one of Ukraine's most popular gothic formations - NECROPOLIS", however, this assertion is not verified and this editor has been unable to find any source to verify it. Some festival appearances, but no apparent major releases or charting activity. Only citations are to music blogs of unknown reliability. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This article has been deleted repeatedly, only to have the author re-create it with exactly the same content. The group fails WP:BAND by far; there are no clear assertions to notability, no references, no substantial ghits, nothing. I'd recommend that the account also be given a warning and blocked if the behavior continues. §FreeRangeFrog 06:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete I second the above- I'd considered this for a speedy delete and had only just erred on the side of caution. The fact it is a repost of an article previously deleted would suggest it should actually come under a G4 speedy delete, as follows;

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Knowledge (XXG)'s deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

But in the interest of consensus, I'll leave it to the floor Benny Digital 08:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Dollheads article has twice been speedily deleted, but never deleted through a deletion discussion, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Deletes have it by a landslide--Jclemens has a point, but the problem is that the article has no decently sourced content. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Races of the Mass Effect universe

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

Huge, unsourced trivia. Anything meaningful about the relationship between races can be summarized in the main article. Note that there is also a massive article on the Characters of the Mass Effect universe which is also at AfD presently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Way too much detail on a fictional universe. Belongs on fan site, not encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Split or Delete - Article is too long, and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Waay, waaay too much WP:GAMECRUFT trivia that is of no interest to a general reader. There are at least two ME wikis for this stuff. Main articles already summarize gameplay enough. There are good sources about the topic, like (mostly hype and news) and it may even pass WP:GNG, but there is no real reason to split it off the main article (yet at least with so few secondary sources). This should be sourced, brief and in Mass Effect. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Hellknowz and WP:GAMEGUIDE. —Torchiest _edits 17:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup or Merge to the franchise article. Agreed that there's too much here, disagree that entirely deleting the whole thing is the best way forward. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - no published reputable secondary sources cover this topic. Claritas § 06:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Borock, obviously trivial. Trivias are not really discouraged but this is unsourced. Mediran 11:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tara Kraft

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

This article has been subject to a prod on two occasions, both times by the same ip who claims to be the person this article is about. I'm listing at afd giving the reasons the ip used in their prods which I also agree with.

"Some friends put up this page because they were amused I had an IMDB entry, but thought the entry should have a picture. Thwarted by IMDB, they created this page instead. But, I am not a notable actress. In fact I'm not any kind of actress any more - it was a hobby for awhile but one I dropped. At first the article was filled with a bunch of made-up nonsense (my mother was an ice carver, my father played native american flute or some such). I corrected the untruths but really the biggest untruth is that this article exists at all! An amusing joke for awhile, but one whose time has ended. Let's delete, shall we?"

"Does not meet criteria for notability. The roles cited below are either community theatre, students films, or unreleased independent films. The only substantiated source is a minor role in an unreleased independent film. There are no independent sources publishing on the topic to verify factuality, significance, or interest." Rotten regard Softnow 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per rationale in the prod. It's a shame that the prod was contested, really, that would have been a better way to handle this. Morwen (Talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I was able to find which is behind a pay wall. But based on the summary, this was one of those local human interest stories. In any case, this would only be one source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Raymond Bragg

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

an emptyMany baks (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found this source, in additional to the one in the article. I bet there were obituaries in papers, too. Morwen (Talk) 20:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

keep The sources are there and make notability obvious. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A just not enough information--Many baks (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Notable person, with notable involvement with the Humanist Manifesto. There is plenty of biographical information available to make this more than a stub. First Light (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Apropos, this is the article that has been deleted from the Russian Knowledge (XXG) because it was lacking content.--Many baks (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep definitely notable. OJ411 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. No actual evidence of notability presented. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OwlCon

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

I came across this page due to it being added to List of gaming conventions. I do acknowledge that it was created today, however I also did a search and was unable to find anything to show that this convention is ultimately notable. There is no in-depth coverage of this in any news source and very little coverage on the Internet in general. This is ultimately your average non-notable gaming convention. Considering that this has been running since the 1980s, that it has received no coverage that I can find in any reliable sources is fairly telling. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - In terms of coverage in reliable sources, this brief mention is the best sourcing I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Delete - Anyone from Texas who is into gaming knows of this convention. It is the largest gaming convention in the 4th largest city in the United States. It has hundreds of attendees every year. It is run by a university organization, so they do not spend a lot of time, effort, and money on publicity. This does not mean it isn't noteworthy. Gilgatex (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - "Notability" as used in wikipedia has a specific meaning. It essentially represents the criteria used to evaluate if a topic should have an article. The primary way of satisfying the inclusion criteria is through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto on what Whpq says. You can say that something is WP:Clearly notable, but you have to back that up with coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources that focus on the convention in-depth. That just doesn't exist at this particular moment in time. Having a lot of attendees does not really matter as far as notability goes, as WP:ITSPOPULAR holds no weight unless the popularity of the convention is covered in (you guessed it) reliable sources. Besides, hundreds of congoers isn't really that big of a number when you realize that some of the smaller conventions such as Anime Mid-Atlantic have about 4,000 attendees per year. This doesn't mean that a convention that only gets about 400-800 attendees a year cannot be notable, but it makes it far less likely. Most times the conventions only get notice if they have the extremely large numbers such as Penny Arcade Expo's 70,000 or the SD Comic Con's 100K+ attendees. Anything less than that and it's usually up to the convention heads to get the publicity for themselves. I know it's harder for student run or independently run organizations to get coverage. I've helped promote indie films, so trust me- I know that most papers will smile and then forget about whatever you're promoting soon after you exit the building. But that doesn't mean that whatever indie project I'm promoting gets a free pass because it's small. It has to follow the same guidelines for notability as the next subject, whether it's a big production or a small one.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kirill Dmitrievich Nikolaev

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. I am going to close this as BLP1E. While there are many keeps, only a few of them take issue with how this jives or not with our BLP1E policy. But, as is pointed out by a number of deletes, it is easily argued that this does exemplify what 1E is intended to cover: widespread coverage (well, in this day an age everything is widely covered) notwithstanding, this is a low-profile individual who may have set off a chain of events, but that in itself does not make her an important player. I'm going to make a redirect to Petraeus scandal, and the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jill Kelley

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

I think this is a case of a WP:BLP1E situation where an article is not warranted. This woman has only received a lot of coverage for receiving harassing e-mails and complaining to the authorities about them. Otherwise, the articles do mention that she has some famous friends and has hosted some nice parties, but neither of those things make her notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Jill Kelly (disambiguation); deletion not required. Powers 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Obvious keep - anybody who is all over the national and international headlines is notable enough to have an article in Knowledge (XXG). Somebody who is obscure and only did one thing might apply to the rule. Redhanker (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep as this deletion review is, as usual for a current events article, premature. Which is the "1E"? The emails from Broadwell or the emails to Allen? It's the fact that this doesn't seem to be contained to the former that led to the creation of this article. I object to putting this up for deletion review without first responding to the rationale given in the Talk page for creating this article and despite the fact another editor agreed with much of that rationale. I do not understand the speed with which people put articles related to current events up for deletion review. All too often it gets deleted and then it just comes back in three days as the sources develop, creating bureaucratic hassles. More time and energy ends up going into these deletion reviews than into maintaining Knowledge (XXG). If the sources have little more to say about this person between today and a month from now, then, sure, let's see if we can't delete this. At present many sources are saying that "The widening scandal surrounding David Petraeus' affair has come to center not only on his mistress, but another woman..." who is the subject of this article. Create an article for this "affair" and then it may be appropriate to delete or merge this article. Absent such an article you evidently expect the whole "scandal" to be packed into some other biography. I note that someone else wanted the Paula Broadwell article deleted as well and merged into David Petraeus. The problem here is that the Petraus article, which is getting more than 120K hits a day this week, is already overly lengthy, taking a long time to load. Who among the deletionists here are going to help out with the Petraeus article to keep "Lebanese American" out of references there to Kelley, etc etc? If some new information comes out regarding Kelley that may have explanatory value for why Petraeus resigned or why Allen's SACEUR nomination is on hold what are we supposed to do with that? It can only go into either General's bio if you know which General it's relevant to and why. I'm not keen on a "scandal" article right now because almost all of the material so far relates to one of the player's biographies and we don't have a name for such an article. But any suggestion about where else to move this information would be welcome as opposed to just a call to delete a fledgling article (or redirect to the disambig which amounts to the same thing).--Brian Dell (talk)
Keep This woman is now in the headlines and in the world spotlight. This is most certainly a notable person, in notable situations, that are causing ripples throughout the military, the CIA, the FBI and other aspects of the Intelligence community, the Government, elected officials, cover-ups, and relates to questionable conduct involving herself and others. There are questions of emails, personal involvements with military personnel, the question of being referenced as "sweetheart" by a Marine General, a question of testimony for child custody related to 2 Generals, concerns between her and Ms. Broadwell, and an FBI agent who presented himself "shirtless" in email and prevented the initial issues from being dropped by the agency when he contacted a Washington representative. This is certainly not 1 single event and as demonstrated involves multiple facets. I can find no reason to remove it as it continues to unfold or ever; there is most certainly more to come. Яεñ99 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- How in the world is this not one event? You realize that multiple e-mails don't qualify as more than one event, right? Powers 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Right now this seems like a text book BLP1E. Unless notability outside of the current scandal can be shown, its probably best that we redirect this to either the parent article on the Petraeus article or a disambiguation page for Jill Kelly. This kind of article has always been one of Knowledge (XXG)'s greatest weaknesses, especially by those with little understanding of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Again, unless notability outside of the scandal can be established this should be redirected. If future events should prove Kelley has indeed garnered independent notability a new article can easily be spun out of the scandal. AniMate 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The "parent article" should be Allen, not Petraeus. It's Broadwell who brought down Petraeus, not Kelley. If Kelley brings down anyone, it'll be Allen. In any case, I fail to see how having a lot of articles is "one of Knowledge (XXG)'s greatest weaknesses". In my view this is a "textbook case" of the sort of bloat we saw in the Benghazi attack article. You get this huge article with stuff like "Glen Doherty a 1988 graduate of Winchester High School". This is really of very marginal relevance to the Benghazi terrorist attack. But all that stuff about the victims' particulars gets piled into the main article because so many in the Knowledge (XXG) community for some reason cannot tolerate having that stuff spun out into a separate bio. The small number of people interested in Doherty's high school can go to that article while the rest of the readership can just inform themselves about why the attack became a political controversy without being subjected to these inane details. I can see the same sort of thing under development here.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution to irrelevant details is to remove them, not sequester them in an obscure article that requires additional maintenance. We do not maintain article ghettos here. Powers 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

By this logic Knowledge (XXG) should consist of one article. Just call it "human knowledge". This would permanently and totally preclude the possibility of "article ghettos," wouldn't it? In any case, I happen to agree with you that article ghettos should be deleted, which means deleting those articles that have lain stagnant for months or years instead of going after current events articles that are being "maintained" almost hourly!--Brian Dell (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone has started Petraeus sex scandal, and though the article title is extremely problematic, I think that should serve as the parent article here. As for your other arguments, I would rather have one overly detailed articles, than three poorly written BLPs where editors throw every single thing they can into them without any consideration toward the subjects they are writing about. AniMate 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement with Brian Dell. Also, there is certainly more than 1 scandal. Note the 2 Generals involved (Petraus/Allen) wrote testimonials on Ms. Kelley's twin sister Natalie Khawam's behalf during a child custody battle - that event is not in context with the alleged adultery of Broadmore/Petraus alone and is instead a question of influence pandering; perhaps under duress? The event occurred after Ms. Kelley complained to the FBI that somebody was sending threatening emails to her at around the same time that the FBI was first interviewing Petraeus' alleged mistress Ms. Broadwell. We can't write significant, separate events out of existence by stating; "...especially by those with little understanding..." - who died and made you Omniscient? Here's a better one; "Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive." Her associations reach beyond simply being "on-the-sidelines" watching "shirtless" texts from afar. Яεñ99 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, given the concerns over the current title for Petraeus sex scandal, I've created a discussion on potential retitling on the talk page. Any concerns over the title or retitling should go there. (Talk:Petraeus sex scandal)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep unless we are going to set up an overall page like 2012 American military email investigations or something along those lines. Jokestress (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect for now to Petraeus sex scandal. That is a term used by tens of thousands of news stories so far, and is not just a salacious term made up by some Knowledge (XXG) editor, although "Petraeus affair" might also be appropriate. Her life as a socialite was not at all notable before the alleged email harassment led to exposing the Petraeus affair and the alleged email exchange with Gen. Allen. Details are sketchy about what she or Allen emailed to one another. This is an instance of WP:BLP1E. We are not a supermarket tabloid, and we are not on deadline. An article can always be spun out of the Petraeus sex scandal article at some future date.I am amazed that anyone would think that Petraeus and Allen writing letters in her sister's custody dispute somehow contributes to her notability. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well said, Edison. For the record, I would be agreeable to redirection to an article on the overall scandal. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  - CBS News and others thought it was a notable fact that both generals would intervene like that. The concern with Petraeus sex scandal is that this person is also involved in David R. Allen communication investigation, a related but separate matter. The overall article should have a broad enough title to cover all aspects. Jokestress (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep This article does NOT meet all three of the criteria of WP:BIO1E. Specifically, it fails the third test, because the event (military sex scandal and email scandal) is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented. This is a developing story, and the centrality and importance of this individual's role is becoming more and more clear as information becomes available. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Sourced. Also a growing news story with global implications. Too soon to declare this player in the cast non-notable.Cramyourspam (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Delete if, inter alia, "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." The events in question are significant. Her rôle is substantial and possibly growing. AndersW 23:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong Delete this would be a serious case of notability and one time event deal. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This person apparently has a major role in an ongoing major news event. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Copy the content back to another article, is my vote, for now. The problem with this type of 'ripped from the headlines' article is that you dont really get a full picture of the person. Most of this article is made up of stuff from current headlines, not really a portrait of a complete human being. It would be fine if it were some article about a video game or something but this is a real person with feelings and a family. Having witnessed the recent Alistair McAlpine debacle (where the head of BBC stepped down after a Twitter mob took up false accusations against someone) the importance of what can be called 'fairness' towards the living should be far more important than putting up a 'latest gush' type article. However, totally deleting the content doesnt really make sense. We are dealing with the public resignation of the head of the CIA after an FBI investigation - that has massive implications for the "intelligence community" as well as the relationship between FBI+CIA (a relationship which could have its own article), not to mention the history of the Pentagon Inspector General office Decora (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete The events are notable, but the individual is not. The Petraeus sex scandal is potentially noteworthy if it becomes a continuing issue about the policies of the FBI and the CIA, however Kelley is a footnote in that issue. The Allen investigation is noteworthy only if there is an adverse outcome, connected to him and would be reported in the article on him. Kelley is otherwise not noteworthy. User:HopsonRoad 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep With all due respect, this woman (Jill Kelley) is famous for the rest of her life from this scandal. Her report to the FBI led to the firing of a CIA Director (and well-known popular retired U.S. General), and her own interactions put a 4-star General, formerly in-charge of Afghanistan operations, currently under Senate confirmation for SACEUR/NATO Chief under investigation. Claiming she isn't notable is ridiculous. Ms. Broadwell is likewise lifetime-notable in relation to the affair. It's sad, but both are notable over this scandal. Lesson-learned out of this: "Be careful what you email, and to whom, and remember, the 'net never forgets'". You'd think guys in-charge of the DOD would know that, but there you have it. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fame is not the same as notability. Powers 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Her life story has been covered in detail since at least 2003.St Petersburg Times January 7, 2003. That was followed by coverage of her life in Tribune January 15, 2003 (at http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/tt/ , Search for: "TASTY TELEVISION" AND date(01/13/2003 to 1/17/2003)), St Petersburg Times January 15, 2003, St Petersburg Times October 8, 2003. The Petraeus scandal is bringing forth more biography information not limited to the context of the event, so the article restrictions of WP:BLP1E do not apply. There's indepth biography information again beginning on Philadelphia Inquirer November 11, 2012 and many other sources through Associated Press November 13, 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep this entry. Knowledge (XXG) is a source of information. To delete an obviously newsworthy topic dilutes the effectiveness of Knowledge (XXG) as an open source. This entry should be retained at least until the full story of her involvement in national security matters is resolved. Other media reports are vague and repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofromomaha (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- — Infofromomaha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep for obvious reasons. Corn cheese (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now. I a few days/weeks we will have much more information. Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep because she is the main character that sparked the Petraeus scandal and is now actively at the center of it. If anything, this article will grow by leaps and bounds given the scope of this unfolding case. She is getting huge media attention that qualify for WP:RS, WP:N; WP:V. IZAK (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I was notified about this AfD although I only created a redirect at that location, ASAIK the creator was not notified. I wouldn't have thought an article could exist there, based on my perception of media coverage. That being said, I don't see how someone could actually look at that article and decide it should be deleted. 1E, recentism, etc. don't matter when there is significant coverage in reliable sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Petraeus scandal. An instance of WP:BLP1E, where the only thing we know is that she exchanged a lot of emails with Allen. Before that point, a good supporter of the US Army and military, but nothing else. If a certain volume of email exchange with a notable person enables makes that person to pass WP:BLP, then this place really is going downhill fast and heading towards a gossip magazine! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now as the person is currently newsworthy. Time will tell whether that is transitory or more permanent. The entry can be deleted at a later point once this controversy is history. Wolfhound1000 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our metric is long-term notability, not short-term newsworthiness. Notability is not temporary, so if you don't feel it's clear that she has long-term notability, we should default to redirecting her name to another article, and only breaking out her information if it proves to be lasting. Powers 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.176.74 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
KEEP - The DIPLOMATIC license plate alone is a HUGE story - very much goes to the entree that money can buy on OUR military bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.18.22 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Ms. Lewinsky has a Wiki page, what makes Jill Kelley exempt from having one? She basically bought her access to our top brass, they took the bait and here we are. Keep the page... the people have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLJonestwo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky has many references spanning from 1998-2009, so she is not an example of WP:BLP1E.User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

KEEP She is a key part of a major scandal in US government and politics during the President Obama Administration. Without her triggering a FBI investigation under the strange circumstance of unsent e-mails in a draft folder shared, with who turned out to be her "bete noir". She is prime mover as well as a central actor in the start of the investigation time line which included the former US CIA Director, who was an acclaimed US Army four-star General, now retired and former commander of the only US military Theater Command which was and is still in combat. A serving US Army female Lt. Col. reservist and West Point Academy graduate, who wrote a well-reviewed biography of the General, who it also turns out, she had an adulterous relationship with the General. Jill Kelley, it turns out, may have had a questionable e-mail relationship with an USMC General, the current commander of the US forces and international forces in Afghanistan, who was slated to become the next NATO commander in Europe, but now is in a limbo status with the proposed nomination on US political hold. Bottom line is that deleting the Jill Kelley article is like deleting the Lee Harvey Oswald article because he was just the trigger man and an unnotable former US Marine. --TGC55 (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Passes notability test. She seems to get more notable as the series of events unfolds. "The CIA director and the commanding officer in Afghanistan were both closely involved with a pair of twin Lebanese sisters, one of whom was a self-appointed diplomatic official who hosted lavish parties for American military officers and loaned six-figure sums to family members while defaulting on her own debt payments and running fake charities, the other of whom accumulated millions in debt, allegedly lied to state and federal courts, and was described by a judge as unstable." --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong KEEP All of the reasons have been outlined above. She is essential part of the scandal. It would be like discussing Clinton without an article about Monica Lewinsky.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep This story's not going away any time soon; people will likely want to read something about Kelley, especially if there's additional unraveling from the Allen side of this. I think that this could be re-evaluated in six months, but remember, notability is permanent, you don't have to maintain it for a certain amount of time. Go Phightins! 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong KEEP This story has so many aspects -- privacy, national security, sexual mores, politics, military life, law, society, etc, -- that it is bound to be debated for years to come. Too Old (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my previous remarks I must ask why this article is less notable than, for instance, the article on the pornographic actress Jill Kelly? Is there a hidden agenda somewhere? Too Old (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Jill Kelly (pornographic actress) has (poorly documented) references that span time, so it is not an example of WP:BLP1E User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment It does seem like a close to textbook example of WP:BLP1E. But she was on the Food Network reality show Food Fight in 2003. Does that relatively minor appearance make her a notable person outside of this scandal? I don't participate in these sorts of discussions enough to know, but I kind of doubt it. Similarly, there are a couple of local news stories above, yet that honestly seems kind of like trivial coverage under WP:BIO. If someone's notable mostly for one major event but arguably notable for other trivial-ish reasons, does BLP1E still apply?AgnosticAphid talk 07:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E says that if "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" then WP:BLP1E is not grounds for deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

While she is a somewhat important figure in this scandal, I didn't mention that because I didn't think you could really fairly compare her role to that of an (attempted) assassin, who is really one of just two characters. I certainly wouldn't support deleting the Broadwell or Petraeus articles. Are there other examples of when that exception applies? AgnosticAphid talk 08:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is a significant event and the role of the individual is substantial and well-documented. There are important details surrounding this individual that are better kept to a separate article, but which are important in considering policy and political ramifications of both her role and that of two of our top generals.--Fassett (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Before deleting this entry, a review of two Knowledge (XXG) articles, one on a showgirl Christine Keeler and the other on an osteopath Stephen Ward might provide perspective: Nothing, actually, in their lives that would merit an entry. Except for the fact that both were instumental in what came to be known as the ] which rocked British politics in 1963. TheaKantorska 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- They may not be notable enough for articles, either. But I also note that both figures have been portrayed in notable media such as film, song, and fiction, which may be enough to distinguish them from Ms. Kelley. Powers 22:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Suffice it to say that not only WP:Other stuff exists, but it exists to a very high degree. Women such as Nan Britton, Lucy Mercer, Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies, Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Amy Fisher, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Cynthia Ore, Anne Fulda, Rielle Hunter, Ashley Dupré or Rachel Uchitel who were involved in or associated with widely publicized sexual indiscretions, are no longer in the news, but have their own, in most cases fairly extensive, Knowledge (XXG) entries and are forever part of history with numerous articles about them imbedded in fairly easily accessible newspaper archives. While there are practical as well as philosophical and semantic differences among brief notoriety, temporary fame and long-lasting notability, as these are applicable to the million biographical entries contained within Knowledge (XXG), for all practical purposes, the project's all-encompassing world-wide reach means that virtually any living or deceased individual with sufficient references and, as in this case, whose name can be vouchsafed by a reasonable number of inclusionists, is eligible for a biographical entry. The fairly extensive presentation against either deletion or redirection entered at the start of this discussion by Brian Dell makes excellent points and, furthermore, specifically with regard to redirection, since as of this writing, the Jill Kelley entry has developed into a fairly sizable article with 17 references to newspaper pieces which are about her as well as her family's biographical details, redirecting all of this material anywhere else would overbalance the target article per WP:COATRACK (undue space/weight).—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, the non-scandal related stuff in this article is really a bit trivial (WP:BIO says, " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"). None of it would warrant a wikipedia article if she wasn't involved in the scandal, whereas the women you reference seem to have other notable achievements like a TV show or a widely known pet cause (WP:BLP1E). And we wouldn't have to merge the information about how Ms Kelley's parents owned a restaurant or her sister lost custody of her son in the Petraeus scandal article; WP:COATRACK seems like a red herring. If people with trivial news coverage don't deserve a wikipedia article, is this really that different? AgnosticAphid talk 08:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As in the case of each of the names listed directly above, the Jill Kelley Knowledge (XXG) entry is a biographical article and, analogous to all of these previous biographical articles, it provides details of the subject's life, not simply her key point of notability. Such details almost always include place of birth, background and profession of parents and other relevant family members, schooling, work accomplishments, marital history, number of children and so on, as exemplified by any entry in Current Biography. Professionally-written pieces contain such details, trivial as these may be, because each detail is a part of the whole picture. WP:BLP concerns should be observed in cases of barely-notable, tangentially-involved individuals, but the fact that both top generals wrote the same type of letter in support of subject's twin sister's child custody dispute, inserts her family into the evolving affair, obviating any BLP concerns.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not super helpful to modify your comment after someone responded to it without so noting. See WP:REDACT. AgnosticAphid talk 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AgnosticAphid has raised a valid argument by pointing out my non-compliance with WP:REDACT. For the benefit of those who may care to know the nature of the infraction, I will repeat the redacted sentence in boldface, with the additions indicated in caps: Women such as Nan Britton, LUCY MERCER, Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies, Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, JESSICA HAHN, AMY FISHER, GENNIFER FLOWERS, PAULA JONES, Monica Lewinsky, Cynthia Ore, Anne Fulda, RIELLE HUNTER, ASHLEY DUPRE or RACHEL UCHITEL who were involved in or associated with widely publicized sexual indiscretions, are no longer in the news, but HAVE THEIR OWN, IN MOST CASES FAIRLY EXTENSIVE, WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES AND are forever part of history with numerous articles about them imbedded in fairly easily accessible newspaper archives.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

delete I am not good at wiki stuff, so forgive me if I bugger this up. While overviewing some of the examples of similar above, I see that some of them are notable otherwise, or played some more important role in whatever scandal, but this person's notability as "emailed a notable person" seems crazy, especially considering her notability otherwise is "tampa socialite." Sometimes, I email famous people, or ask them to sign posters at concerts, and even if I say, grabbed Obama's crotch, I don't think that would make me notable, regardless of the amount of news coverage it got. Even if said crotch grabbing occurred at a very fancy party, as I imagine it would have to, because I don't think he'd come over to my crappy two bedroom house. 65.25.235.226 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep, notability seems clear based on the sources. Everyking (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Conditional Keep If Monica Lewinsky has an article, this person should as well. I'm normally an Immediatist, but I'm starting to see more developments to this story by the day. If the story ended today, then I'd say delete this article and re-direct to the main scandal article. However, I'm reading stories from other outlets where Kelley has deeper connections with the Obama administration - including multiple visits to the White House in 2012, and even a visit to the WH the weekend before the 2012 elections. In other words, there's more to this story than what you're seeing here. Give it a few more weeks, and if the context of her notability remains the same afterwards, then re-direct. Groink (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Vsvp2109

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

I cannot identify the subject of this article. I would normally CSD A3 it, but I wasn't sure whether it applies here. I then PRODded it, but the creator took the template down. I tried contacting them, but I had no answer for almost a week. The context is so unclear to me that it would be impossible for me even to Google something. Maybe someone with more knowledge on Chemistry could help us more, but right now, this page seems quite unencyclopedic and confusing. Not to mention, of course, the lack of sources or notability. Victão Lopes 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, possibly as an A3 speedy. Even if this were formatted correctly (e.g. as in this older version), it would consist almost entirely of tables of numbers with no context. Basically, it looks like a pile of experimental data, not even having sufficient analysis to rise to the level of original research. It's certainly not useful as a contribution to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Totally unsuitable for Knowledge (XXG). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There is no need to relist. If an article cannot find support within one week then it is justifiable to delete it as in a prod. Xxanthippe (talk).
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete, it appears to have maybe been a lab report, but it is still unsuitable for Knowledge (XXG). Chris857 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Inherent notability based on a status which is, apparently, verified. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ujagar Singh

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

Another user, Patchy1, added a proposed deletion tag but I removed it, considering the article's age, the subject's foreign nationality and the possibility that AfD may offer a wider pool of opinions. Google News provided one result suggesting Ujagar Singh existed and Google Books also provided results. However, while scanning the Google Books results for useful information, I noticed nearly all of them provide irrelevant previews and insufficient information to indicate how useful the books are. Considering the subject is from the 1950s-1960's, sources may not be English or Internet-based so I hope an AfD can offer a clear consensus. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Unsourced BLP -- Patchy1 02:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, subject to sourcing: The one sentence currently in the article is itself arguably a claim to WP:POLITICIAN#1, depending on one's interpretation of the status of Fiji's Legislative Council immediately before independence. In fact, a scan of the GBooks results for a somewhat more limited search (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) produces several sources from the 1970s, after Fijian independence, which seem to refer to him as a Member of Parliament (and thus certainly passing WP:POLITICIAN). Unfortunately, the likely reliable sources are given in snippet view, making it difficult to determine exactly what they say. Sources therefore (almost) certainly exist - it's a matter of getting access to them. PWilkinson (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I've examined the Googlebooks entries, too, and don't see anything that looks like substantial coverage in multiple relaible independent secondary sources. I'm disinclined to think that being a member of parliament in such a small country is inherently notable, especially if no persistent coverage can be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - He is verifiable as a member of the Legislative Council of Fiji. Online sources are likely to be rare for somebody who held office in Fiji in 1968. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pares Chandra Datta

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

Peson is not notable.Needs additonal citations for verification,poorly referenced. Harishrawat11 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 5. Snotbot t • c » 03:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. I could not find any independent significant coverage about him, or indeed any coverage at all. It's not even clear what he was supposed to be notable for: he was a physician and civil servant, but nothing that would appear to mark him out for particular fame. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I also could not any coverage at all on this person, nevermind anything resembling substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. ~~
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jemima Repo

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Some 470 doctorates are completed annually and nearly 10,000 scientific articles or monographs are published yearly by the university’s researchers (http://www.helsinki.fi/admissions/postgraduate_applicants.htm). The person in question is according to the sources (http://www.helsinki.fi/politics/administration/researchers.html) just one of many hundred researchers in this one Finnish univeristy, namely Helsinki university. Every resercher with a doctorate has an basic obligation to publish some articles in there own particular field. I so no reason for this article. Pgarret (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Social science

Delete appears to be about a PhD student, or least she was when the article was created. The thesis is listed on Google scholar, so is presumably complete. Though she may now be more notable, there has been no new content. There is also a possible COI. p.s. I relisted this with the original comment by nominator, who appears not to have followed the procedure, so this has been languishing for approaching a month. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Someone at this level (now a postdoctoral researcher? at least that's what the Helsinki profile says) needs to make a very big splash to pass WP:PROF, because it's an early point in the academic career and without a longer record it's difficult to distinguish the student from the advisor. But I'm not seeing any evidence of it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

National anthem of Cornwall

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

Non-existing national anthem, as Cornwall is not a nation, nor, as the "article" states, has an official national anthem. The Banner _talk 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also, the template "National anthems of Europe" needs major pruning, as territories, dependencies and "other areas" are not nations either. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree in general, and certainly the template needs cleaning up, but the information here is important and should be merged to Cornwall where there is no mention of these region/county songs. So merge to Cornwall.--Bduke (Discussion) 08:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I made the page. I suggest rename it "Anthem of Cornwall" and make it an article. Not only "nations" but also other kinds of entities can also have their own anthems. If there were some candidates for the anthem of Cornwall and the topic had been discussed among Cornish people, the article could be written, I think. --Wikipean (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should we keep a page about the local anthem, when there is no official anthem at all? Local pride is not a reason to keep an article. Beside that, the "article" has no references at all to back up the claim. The Banner _talk 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The claim of being an anthem is also unsourced in the articles about the songs.

Find a better name for this, which is essentially a dab-page. This is a list of typically regional songs. Cornwall is not a nation, only a county of England, as it has been for 1000+ years. Remove the national anthems navbox, which is misused here. WE might as well have articles on a Yorkshire Natioanl Anthem, possibly "On Ilkley Moor" or the Lincolnshire poacher for Lincolnshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Title is misleading because, as others have mentioned, Cornwall is not a nation. The fact that some songs have been called "the national anthem of Cornwall" is not really worthy of an article. That fact could be mentioned in their articles, and the articles linked by a category and/or some kind of article on "Traditional songs of Cornwall" or something like that. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep The belittling of Cornish national identity aside (local pride?!), the existence of this article does not imply that there is an official national anthem for Cornwall, only that certain songs have been described as an anthem of the Cornish nation. Given the true definition of 'nation', perhaps a rename to Cornish national anthem would be more appropriate. --Kernowek (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well...I'm offended. (Not really, I've been on WP for over 5 years. ;-)) I have nothing against Cornwall, have never been there, but know that King Arthur came from there so it must be a great place. I disagree "that certain songs have been described as an anthem of the Cornish nation" is a worthy topic for a WP article. Any more than there should be an article on "Certain foods that have been described as the national food of the United States of America", or any such topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Keep. Sources exist, they point out the subject's notability--the language is irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Majid Al Muhandis

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

A proposed deletion of this article failed with the suggestion that Majid Al Muhandis turns up several Google hits when the Arabic name is used. Having translated these through Google Translate, however, it would appear that Majid Al Muhandis is also the name of an engineer, and that most of the entries are about the engineer and not the singer about whom this article is written. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for musicians. Neelix (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I must correct some inaccuracies in the nomination. When I contested WP:PROD deletion I did not refer to several Google hits, but many Google News hits,, and Google News usually has a ratio of reliable to unreliable sources several orders of magnitude higher than a Google web search. I don't understand Arabic, but can see that most of the first twenty or so of those thousand hits have pictures of our article subject, so are not about some namesake. I also suggested that Arabic-reading editors should evaluate this before it is considered for deletion, but I can see no evidence that the nominator has done anything to try to get such editors involved. I would have thought that someone who claims to be an ambassador for Knowledge (XXG) would take such an approach rather than rush straight to deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for having misinterpreted your edit summary. I have notified WikiProject Arab World of this deletion discussion. Neelix (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow 05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Unfortunately, there aren't enough English sources to support an appropriate English article at this time. It appears the one reference, portal.sawbeirut.com, no longer exists so I recovered the link through web.archive.org which only mentions him twice. He is probably a well-known singer for Pakistan but I'm not fluent with Urdu (or any of the Middle Eastern languages) so I wouldn't know where and how to search. However, Google News found two relevant results, one news article here (concert cancellation announcement) and here (brief mention for a performance). I have no prejudice towards a future article with appropriate and significant references. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per SwisterTwister's reasoning. Recreate if/when more English-language reliable sources are available. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep on the basis there are Arabic sources. Phil Bridger is of course 100% correct: There is nor requirement for there to be English sources. We prefer English sources when they are available, but even so we would add the most complete and most reliable sources also even if they were in another language. Wikipedical's comment is contrary to established WP:V/RS policy, and Swister/Twister should have realized that even if there are sources they personally can not use, others will be able to. We have several thousand enWP people who can read Arabic. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the nominator's claim that many of the sources are about an engineer with this name, that it a misunderstanding of the results of machine translation. The subject's surname translates as "engineer", but that doesn't make him an engineer any more than I am a bridge-builder. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No one has proven that there is significant coverage in Arabic sources. I have contacted WikiProject Arab World to notify them of this discussion, but no one has responded. The burden of proof rests on those who seek to keep the article, just as it does in the case of those who seek to reinsert unsourced information removed from an article as stated in Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on verifiability. Neelix (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was No consensus to delete. This is a very well sourced list, and a featured list, and as such it meets our core policy of verifiability with gusto. While there is a preponderance of delete votes here, many of them seem to amount to "I don't like the subject matter". While I don't like the subject matter either, I think the point is well made in this debate that this is high quality content, and so I close this debate accordingly. -- Y not? 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I will add to say that if any editor finds any specific entry on this list to be too CRYSTAL, he or she may edit the article as necessary. That's not a rationale for deletion. -- Y not? 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs

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

WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. mostly sourced to bmi entries and unreliable websites, which does not indicate actual existence. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - A fan or promoter has evidently crafted out this page. A few of the links are dead or seem irrelevant. Since these unreleased songs may be intended for release in the future, is it also WP:CRYSTAL? In which case these songs can later be incorporated in to Britney Spears discography. Kooky2 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL does not apply simply wherever the current, verified status of something might change; it would only apply if the list included unsourced speculation about that possible change (the songs' possible future release). postdlf (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete. These lists of unreleased songs by artists or bands are almost always blatant WP:FANCRUFT, and I hardly see this as an exception. Notability is not established, as all of the cited sources are primary. --NINTENDUDE 23:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- All of the cited sources are not primary; take another look. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment. The vast majority of the sources are primary, either originating from BMI or ASCAP. --NINTENDUDE 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    - Some things cannot simpy be cited by third party reliable sources. For articles like this, first party sources are more reliable thatn third paty ones, and BMI and ASCAP are well reliable enough to hold this list's existence and notability. Remember that notability for lists has another different standards than for articles. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. An unreleased song is not notable, nor is a list of unreleased songs, performed by X does not increase that notability. A list of songs is not notable in itself. As there appears to be no requirement for a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears then the interest and notability of this list does not appear to be established.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete This list is not notable, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CRYSTAL Kooky2 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Given that this is a Featured List, dismissing it as mere fancruft seems a rather facile way to address it, and attributing it to a "fan or promoter" shows a failure to even take the time to look at it and its history carefully. I'm not sure that we should have a requirement that featured content be delisted first before being taken to AFD, but that status shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I attributed the page to a fan or promoter, after careful checking and even editing some of the dead links myself. (I am not a dedicated fan) This comment was based on the obscure content, the editing history and the fact that it was originated by a user: BritneyFan and several single-purpose IP addresses. The comment was intended to be neutral which is why I used the word crafted. Perhaps I should have added that it wouldn't matter if it had all been written by Britney herself, provided the content merited inclusion in WP. Most AfD pages appear to be created with an agenda and often they are also posted for AfD with an agenda, it's just some editors are more subtle about hiding it. Kooky2 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - unreleased songs are not notable, also we've removed enough of these "unreleased song" type pages recently as well; why should this one stay? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment. The following AfD's relating to unreleased and/or outtakes are relevant and all resulted in delete:-

Bon Jovi.

Only one or two others have survived. My earlier comment still stands. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a statement, considering some have been covered by reliable news sources. Unreleased songs can be notable. She's one of few artists who has notable unreleased songs, not all, but some. Statυs (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I don't know how exactly the article is full of unreliable sources, when there are several from sources such as Billboard, USA Today, New York and MTV. The BMI reports clearly show who recorded the song, if you actually take a look it shows "Artist: Britney Spears" on most of them. The argument in bother AFDs for unreleased songs were that they don't have a artist present, and only the artist as a co-writer of the song, so it is only assumed they recorded the song. This is a well done article that passed FLC with seven supports. Could use a bit of a clean-up, but that's all. Statυs (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
BMI doesn't say if the singer recorded the song, it just states who it was written for, considering it is a website of songwriters... AARON• 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep The nomination statement makes no sense. By the way, how this list rached featured status if it qualifies for deletion? I guess that folks at FLC know very well notability guidelines and other stuff to make sure that promotions are of very good quality. As a result, there is no valid reason to delete this list. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are two guidelines that cannot be applied here: This is encyclopedic content that has historical value; and I am no fan of Britney at all. Also, I'd like to hear the definition the nominator has of "unreliable websites", which is, in my opinion, clearly incorrect. I guess that a good read of WP:BEFORE and several notability and inclusion guidelines would make good. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete because Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of everything that has existed. BPI etc. do not account for notability. Any songs that are referenced with secondary, reliable sources can be briefly mentioned on the relevant album article. Till 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with other people above you voted delete. They carry no relevance or notability. I might add that I strongly disagree with these songs being adding to the List of songs recorded by Britney Spears list too. They shouldn't be included as a list/table anywhere. I good place for them would be on their respective intended albums. No even knows if these songs were recorded. AARON• 00:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I don't see how an unreleased song could be seen as notable, unless it was some highly anticipated song that created a great deal of press for some reason...no...none of these are notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge with the article on Britney Spears; if these songs are unreleaed, it could not really be merged with Britney_Spears_discography. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It definitely can't go in Britney Spears, it has no place at all. Unreleased songs are not notable. AARON• 16:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 01:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

List of UFC events in 2012

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

List of UFC events in 2013 is a similar page and should be deleted as well.I remember halloween (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Pages are being deleted without information being retained, when information should be transfered here at the least. Page contains the same (if not less) information that List of UFC events does. Page also bears similarity to a previous page on the debate of UFC notibility (2012 in UFC events) which was ultimatley deleted and it's containing events reinstated to their own pages. Autokid15 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 5. Snotbot t • c » 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - See List of UFC events for a comparison. Northamerica1000 08:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Suprised were going through this same process yet again. Each event page contains information specific to that event such as previously scheduled fights, and a list of fights on each card. Knowledge (XXG) has become a great source for collecting this information (as a journalist who runs the website TheMMApodcast.com) and it would be a shame to have to stop using this as a resource for information. Like Autokid15 mentioned, this has been a problem broached before by members here and it was ultimately decided that each event should be granted it's own page as each event is a big deal for MMA/UFC fans. Not sure who is trying to lead this charge to take down information relating to this, but I can assure you most MMA fans and journalists alike are not keen to it whatsoever. There are other places to get this information, but as far as reliability I have gotten used to the comprehensiveness and familiarity with each event being on Knowledge (XXG). JMW814 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This page is completely redundant and all of its information is exactly contained in List of UFC events. It serves no purpose and is of no value. JMW814, these terrible pages, such as this and the quarterly omnibusses are products of the assault that was waged upon the wikipedia MMA structure. We are deleting the last remnants of that battle and restoring things to the way they once were. The only thing left to do after this article is killed is rebuild the few remaining event articles that do not have articles.I remember halloween (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Complete support for the above reasoning by I remember halloween, which is an accurate account of previous events Trok333 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment the List of UFC events is over 80kb long and having the events split by year or decade seems a sensible way to address the length of List of UFC events. Mtking 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment MtKing's comment above is clearly left in bad faith given she used to support putting all MMA/UFC content (not just a list of links but the entire contents) for an entire year on one page, and the results were hundreds of KB long. Significant effort was wasted to stop this but now MtKing's back again with more disingenuous requests. Anything to make MMA coverage worse on wiki and generally antagonizing MMA editors seems to be the standard operating procedure here. Agent00f (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Seconded. MtKing has proven himself to little more than a troll at this point. He has been completely counter productive to everything that has transpired with WP MMA for the last year or so. He is offering intentionally poor recommendations with the intentiong of doing no more than antagonizing people.I remember halloween (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It now seems that the reason why UFC in Macao/Macau was because of a lack of sources that are suppose to not relate to MMA. While this is in no violation of the questionable source wiki page (WP:NOTRELIABLE), here are some "non-MMA" websites that relate to the topic, ESPN, Sportsnet and China Daily . Autokid15 (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The "MMA sources" are hardly questionable. For example, the couple MMA deletionists like to pretend MMAJunkie or whatever is some sort of shill journal when its role as a property/brand of USA Today is clearly noted under every one of its pages and elsewhere. This would imply that A) they've never visited any of the sources they're criticizing and therefore argue from a position of ignorance, or B) they're already aware but choose to blatantly lie. Given that this issue's been brought up countless times in months past, option A seems rather untenable. Agent00f (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you, I forgot that USA Today acquired MMAJunkie when it was still in it's infancy. Should be also noted that MMAJunkie won Best Media Source award. Autokid15 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete In its current state I don't think this page should be kept, the information is simply repeated. I agree with comments that the List of UFC Events article does need work, as it currently resembles a database rather than an easy to view article. However I don't think creating a specialist page for each year of UFC events is the answer. JP22Wiki (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep This page is the result of what consensus and compromise was able to be cobbled together from the Policy says X' and the Support MMA camps. An idea was floated to break the page out into sub-articles that each carried a specific classification (numbered events, UFC on Fox, UFC on FX, etc.) This article was supposed to be the index that allowed people interested in the series of events the information. The idea was shouted down because it would have meant the merging and redirecting of several of the existing articles into the classification lists or to here. The idea was to have these pages be the little blurb that lead you into the individual event article (once it was appropriate for an individual article). Obviously because we're fighting the same argument for what appears to be the 5th time, we have to question if even the consensus we have currently is even able to stand with the repeated and constant challanges. Hasteur (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If this page were the product of consensus, then surely someone can point to where to it was decided among editors who've any visible competence or interest in this material. It's interesting that even though the MMA pages were modeled after the same formatting as the rest of the sports entries on wiki, and even tend to be better sourced than the norm, it's come under very specific strongly motivated deletions from a camp. Just like IRL, better judgement is produced by those with some knowledge of the subject matter at hand rather than the opposite. Agent00f (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Useless page with repeated information. No one wants to maintain this. The only people who want this thing are those who are on a crusade against articles about UFC events. Previous attempts to have a page like this one proved to be a total catastrophe. Evenfiel (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete There's not a lot of value in having this index without having it link back to the associated UFC in 2012 pages, which have all been deleted. Without those pages, I agree that this article is redundant and that List of UFC events has the same information in a better format. CaSJer (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Iranian Archaeology

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

Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Conditional merge to Wahesht Mina International Institute (publisher) if somebody can create that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 23 October 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) 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep -- This appears to be a rather new academic journal. We should assume that it is a serious journal until proved otherwise. If it is such, it should be notable. I agree that the present article is a poor one. In view of the sanctions against Iran and its recentness, its failure to appear in citation indices and the like is perhpas not surprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment That's an interesting reasoning: so for any new journal you want us to assume that it is "serious" and that then makes it notable?? I know a lot of journals that are going to be very happy if WP would accept that as policy... And I don't think that sanctions have anything to do with indexing. Indexing, after all, does not entail forking over cash, which is what sanctions are about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - we do not keep most new journals; the contrary is probably closer to standard practice. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Wahesht Mina International Institute (or similar) or Delete. There is likely to some notability here, but it's not with the journal. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep as an exception, to avoid systematic bias for this rarely covered field. This is almost the only sort of journal where I differ from Guillaume2303 -- new or minor journals in the traditional humanities especially from other than the major publishing countries. The merge suggestion would be appropriate also. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new merge targets Fereidoun Biglari is the journals' editor and appears to be Head of the Paleolithic Department of the National Museum of Iran. Either the editor or the institution would be suitable merge targets. Fereidoun Biglari doesn't have overwhelming google scholar rank (my default measure of notability for academics in fields I'm unfamiliar with), which makes me wary of him. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per Bearian, above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability at all. If this actually is a new legitimate journal, then WP:TOOSOON applies. However, I'm skeptical as it is not indexed anywhere. The keep !votes above are based entirely on special pleading. Without reliable sourcing, there isn't anything that can be merged. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. This journal has not yet clearly established notability. If it achieves notability in the future, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

International Institute for Learning

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Zad68 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I found several reliable sources (mostly independed published works) that could prove useful:
Ambriz, Rodolfo (2008). Dynamic Scheduling with Microsoft Office Project 2007. J. Ross Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 9781932159875.

Blais, Steven (2011). Business Analysis: Best Practices for Success. John Wiley & Sons. p. 27. ISBN 9781118076002.

Kerzner, Harold (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs, and Dashboards. John Wiley & Sons. p. 329. ISBN 9781118026526.

Schwalbe, Kathy (2010). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning. p. 325. ISBN 9781111221751.

Cohen, Eli (2005). Where Parallels Intersect. Informing Science. p. 682. ISBN 9788392233701.

Bolles, Dennis (2002). Building Project Management Centers of Excellence. Vol. 1. Amacom. p. 3. ISBN 9780814407172.
Hope it helps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hahc21 for doing some digging. Looking into the references you found, I see:

Ambriz, Rodolfo (2008). Dynamic Scheduling with Microsoft Office Project 2007. J. Ross Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 9781932159875. -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
Blais, Steven (2011). Business Analysis: Best Practices for Success. John Wiley & Sons. p. 27. ISBN 9781118076002. -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
Kerzner, Harold (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs, and Dashboards. John Wiley & Sons. p. 329. ISBN 9781118026526. -- Not an independent reference, it's basically a bit of in-book ad copy written by the company itself
Schwalbe, Kathy (2010). Information Technology Project Management. Cengage Learning. p. 325. ISBN 9781111221751. -- Only an in-passing mention of the company name
Cohen, Eli (2005). Where Parallels Intersect. Informing Science. p. 682. ISBN 9788392233701. -- Only an in-passing mention of the company name
Bolles, Dennis (2002). Building Project Management Centers of Excellence. Vol. 1. Amacom. p. 3. ISBN 9780814407172. -- Looks to be only an in-passing mention, and Bolles appears to be financially connected to the IIL (see here) so it would not be an independent reference anyway

Cheers anyway... Zad68 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow 05:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete as discussed above, no indepth sources. gnews reveals mainly PR style web references. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete. Non-notable due to complete lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. My own Google search turned up nothing but first-party and tangential mentions like those listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete I'm not finding sufficient independent sources (i.e. those that don't use formulations like "our" or "are pleased to announce") to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hampton Place

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

Non-notable building. Both refs (now link dead) point to developer, so it looks like there have never been any independent links. Google reveals many hits, but they all seem to be database entries or real estate agents trying to sell units in the building; I'm not seeing any in depth coverage of the building itself. It's possible there are non-English WP:RS, but none of the two non-English-wikipedia articles link to obviously independent reliable sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete non-notable topic. TBr and ley 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - agree with above --Go Phightins! 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Kinu /_c 01:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Mika

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

PROD tag removed by creator, does not meet WP:NBIO nor WP:GNG Legoktm (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

delete not notable. Shorthate (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Fails all notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything resembling substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete No signs of notability for anything.STATic message me! 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article attempts to establish notability and fails. Could not establish notability myself. -—Kvng 16:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Deletes have it, and there are serious 1E concerns here as well. In the end, though, lack of sources point to deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Don Shirley (diver)

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

Lack of notability; reliable sources and bias nature of article. PoseidonDiver (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - based on reasons stated above. Second most important character in non fictional book not adequate to establish notability. Only one source provided. PoseidonDiver (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to David Shaw (diver), which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:12, 29 October 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) 19:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, no independent notability and not relevant enough to the article on David Shaw (diver) for a merger. Huon (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Kinu /_c 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Brandi Lyons

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with her awards being scene awards. Fails the general notability guidelines without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Fails GNG as not the subject of multiple, independently published instances of coverage in trustworthy sources. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

delete I agree with Carrite. --Shorthate (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related awards and nominations. Fails GNG. My searches for non-trivial RS coverage yielded only an interview in AVN. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Delete: lack of notability is indicated by lack of sources, as participants suggest. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bhante Vimalaramsi

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

All the cited sources are self-published, so it's hard to establish notability according to them. Kurepalaku (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I visited this page once, when I read that Bhante Vimalaramsi is rather unorthodox in his understanding of the sutras. I'd like to keep the article, so I'll try to find sources. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found one external source, and added references tot the article. I think it's worth keeping, because of Vimalaramsi's critique of the Burmese Vipassana-method, and his return to the "sources", c.q. the suttas. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 31 October 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) 14:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. How about keeping the article and closing this AfD? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bhante Vimalaramsi is not being mentioned in any newspaper, but his interpretation of meditation-teachings have attracted a wide interest (and critique) WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His translation/interpretation of the Anapanasatti Sutra is widely copied For the traditional accounts: there is a short bio in "Quli, Natalie (2008), "Multiple Buddhist Modernisms: Jhāna in Convert Theravāda" (PDF), Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist", in which several western Theravada teachers are being compared. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm seeing many claims of notability, but nothing substantive supported by reliable sources. --Kinu /_c 01:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Keeps have it: there are sources, there is history. Thin as all it is, there is notability there. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All Saints Episcopal Church (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)

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

No indication of notability - just another church like many others with nothing here to distinguish it. Created by someone with a WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the initial editor of this article. I created it because I used to edit articles on Knowledge (XXG) articles often and fell out of practice. I decided on this topic because All Saints is my church and it made sense to get back into practice by writing about something that I was already familiar with. So yes it is a conflict of interest in that sense, but I just attend the church and I'm not a member of the clergy. I'm not out to get people to join the church or anything. If I maintain a nonpartisan tone and cite sources effectively I hope this the conflict of interest will be deemed minor. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The congregation was formed in 1912 and the church building dates back to 1950. That may not seem very long but for South Florida it is ancient. I had hoped that being 100 years old was notability enough. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep (but needs work) The fact that the church is 100 years old and continuing to function is good enough to distinguish it from any old religious group, and they even had a financial scandal and a sex scandal causing a rector to be removed from the priesthood, according to my Google searches. There is something worth developing here. But at present the article reads a bit more like a tour guide or brochure for the church.OfficeGirl (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- comment And they made news by jailing a homeless man in 2006 who was looking for some food and a place to sleep.OfficeGirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll a paragraph to the history section with the more recent stuff. When I made the article this morning I knew I would have to add to it, but I didn't think it would be reviewed quite so quickly! Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- You beat me to it! Thanks! Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. It is notable for its music program; it has been notably large for its denomination, and it has been a place of pilgrimage beyond mere local interest. I'm not sure if, even by my standards, all 100-year-old churches are per se notable. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Disclosure: FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that not all 100 year old churches merit an article. However the location is an important factor as well. Fort Lauderdale was only settled by non-military Americans in 1893. This particular church was established less than 20 years later. This would be the equivalent of a church being established in Massachusetts in 1640, only twenty years after the landing of the Mayflower. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find anything in the article about pilgrimage. To what are you referring? St Anselm (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Florida is the home to the oldest city in North America, so the simple fact that the church is 100 years old is not enough to make it notable. There are many buildings in Florida that are as old or older, and they also fail WP:Notability --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Per Bearian, and passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Additional comment to respond to StAnselm - I think note 16 (Brooks, Louise, "Nine Same-Gendered Couples Blessed in Episcopal Church Ceremony.") supports the propostion that this is a place of pilgrimage; several couples travelled from out of state to have their weddings there. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, that source is a blog. Can we find a better source? Bearian (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added an additional source for this event, and article in South Florida Gay News. Cfitzpatrick3 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. WP:GNG...there is some sources sources, some coverage that are independent of the subject. The most notable reason, "...well known for its outreach to the pets of its congregants, and welcomes the animals into the church sanctuary once a month for a special blessing, including dog biscuits...". rotflol!! Basileias (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The Interior (Talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hala, Sindh

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

As seen in the previous version of the article (which I have removed on grounds of not being notable enough to be added and not being consistent with Knowledge (XXG) quality), there is nothing very notable about this town, except that it exists. My opinion stands to expand the article enough to give some reason for it being notable, or to delete this article until such details can be established, after which we can always re-create the article TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, as we do standardly with verifiably inhabited places. Mind you, it would have helped if the right geographical coordinates had been in the article - I've now corrected this. PWilkinson (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a town with a larger population than, say, Oxford, Cairns or Eugene, Oregon. A ridiculous nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone show me the actual rules regarding places and their notablity? I seem to be having quite a problem getting hang of the full rules when it comes to things like verifiablity and notablity of articles. I withdraw my nomination seeing the consensus of the community based on how this AfD is going. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It's a verified settlement and it appears to be a very significant one. . There is no such thing as an unnotable town. Anywhere in the world there is a presumption of sources, whether they be government, historic, periodical or any other format as it's impossible for a settlement to exist without them. WP:OUTCOMES gives an indication on settlements. This is the 2nd largest city I've ever seen put up for AfD. The first largest was AfD'd by the same nom - Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakeem, Pakistan. There, after all the editors explained that settlements are considered inherently notable in various ways, the nom User:TheOriginalSoni stated "I believe the consensus of the community is clear on this issue. I therefore withdraw my nomination." Despite that, for some reason that same user threw this city up for AfD. Due to that recent AfD, this one is looking pointy. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn. (Non-admin technical closure) Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan area of Barranquilla

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

This topic does not warrant its own article as it cannot possibly cover enough unique information that is not already--and better--covered within the already very comprehensive parent article Barranquilla. besieged 14:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The article is a stub, certainly, but this is a metropolitan area with a population of 2 million people! "cannot possibly cover enough unique information" is very strong. Especially considering that this is not just an informal term or something identified by a census, but there's actually a formally recognised metropolitan area with boundaries, a board, and a mayor. Morwen (Talk) 15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I do not see why we should delete an article on an administrative unit on the basis that one of the cities making part of the unit already has a comprehensive article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RESCINDED I wasn't aware metro areas warrant their own articles, until I did further checks. My mistake, I rescind my deletion nomination. (not sure if I should remove the tags on the article or not). besieged 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I will do the formalities, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete - article was deleted by RHaworth (administrative non-admin close). Stalwart111 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Syed ali raza author

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

Fails WP:BASIC Harsh (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete - per nom and completely promotional in nature, a c.v. masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. If by some chance this isn't speedied, I want to voice that this should be deleted because the subject is not notable. He might be wealthy and have accomplished quite a bit- which should definitely be admired, but that in and of itself does not establish notability. I was looking to see if he could pass WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm not exactly certain which political office he actually holds. A search with Google Translate and the Urdu form of his name doesn't really bring anything up in the news or general search to show this either, as there is at least one other person that goes by the name Syed Ali Raza, although I note that the article for that gentleman could use a little wiki TLC. (But from what I can find, he does initially seem to be notable.) If someone else can find material to show he holds a notable political position I'm willing to change my vote, but offhand I have to say that he doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Udjo Ngalagena

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

A person from Indonesia; the confusing article doesn't tell us what he might be notable for. A PROD in 2009 was declined because the subject was deemed likely notable. That may be so, but the article is borderline-incomprehensible junk and hasn't been improved since. Unless somebody wants to do this now, I recommend unprejudicial deletion per WP:TNT. Sandstein 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ay yi yi, um, delete Googling this hurt my brain. The only text I could find in anything resembling coherent English suggested (from the snippet I saw) that this is a type of gamelan orchestra and not a person. Everything else was either transliterated or as garbled as this is. I think there is considerable hope for notability; what there doesn't seem to be is anything that an article could be constructed from by English speakers. I think at this point that WP:TNT is the only way to go unless someone who is good in both Indonesian and English comes along and gives it a total rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think Saung Angklung Udjo, the youth music ensemble he founded, is more notable than he is. There are quite a few Indonesian-language references that seem promising for an article about it. I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources about the Udjo himself, especially outside the context of the ensemble. I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable, independent source, but it does serve as an English-language overview. If the group had an article, I'd advocate merger. Currently, it doesn't, and I'm willing to give the somewhat tenuous sourcing a pass in part to counter systemic bias: very little Indonesian-language reportage prior to about 2005 is available online, and I think it's virtually certain that there's more in local hardcopy about this man and the work he did, dating back to the ensemble's formation in 1967. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping if you can convert this into readable English with some minimal reliable sourcing. Systemic bias concerns, however, can't excuse keeping this sort of semi-nonsensical garble. Per WP:V, it's not enough that sources may exist somewhere, they need to be cited in the article or it has to go. Sandstein 17:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to have something serviceable here later today or tomorrow. Seeing if I have any way to track down older Indonesian material before I get started on a rewrite. Ideally, I'd like to do better than a stub. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Everything I could find in English, and a substantial amount of Indonesian sources, originated as press releases or something similar, so I'm giving up here. I still think Saung Angklung Udjo could probably support an article based in part on dead tree Indonesian sources, but that's going to have to wait to be written by someone with better access to the material and more competence with the language than I do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. As well as non-notable, there is a possible conflict of interest as it looks as if the article creator's Google+ page links to a commercial organization promoting Udjo's music. Davidelit (Talk) 03:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was Has been speedied. Peridon (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Mac on the Rocks

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

Non-notable YouTube video. I can't find any mention of it in reliable sources other than Knowledge (XXG), and it doesn't involve anyone notable (note that Knowledge (XXG)'s Luis Romero is someone else entirely). Robofish (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I noticed that the user that created the page shares the same name as the production company Midnite Productions, so there's an obvious COI here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I notice it's been speedied, but in case it doesn't get deleted I want to vote delete. There are no reliable sources out there to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete if not speedy deleted for copyright violation from here. This short film does not meet minimum criteria for inclusion in WP. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 - as the copyvio has been removed, I've tagged it A7 instead. Just another YouTube short. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete. A7, web content that does not credibly indicate notability.--xanchester (t) 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 International U-21 Thanh Nien Cup

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

blatantly fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. dubious notability of an under 21 event. LibStar (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - I would question the notability of such event if it was for senior teams, but this one is for under-21 teams. No indication of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was split to base-name redirect at Unji to Undzhi, and disambiguation page at Unji (disambiguation) JHunterJ (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unji

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Also, article is a combination of non-notable, original research / nonsense linking an energy drink commercial's to a former South Korean president's suicide. Might make a good movie, but not a Knowledge (XXG) article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think this article should be protected because tones of people ignored the original article which redirected to undzhi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unji&oldid=281971856 ). I agree with your comment that this is kind of orginal research and nonsense. If this word is fit to Knowledge (XXG) policy, why korean wikipedia didn't have same article? If you can understand korean please look this article (http://ko.wikipedia.org/%EC%9A%B4%EC%A7%80 ) and its talk page, history page. Someone constantly try to put same content to korean wikipedia and it's constantly denied. I think somebody constantly are vandalizing about this word. Also, korean wikipedia user also think that Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. so it should be deleted. Tigger10 (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm already reporting one user for blanking the page and not giving any rationale for their actions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think most of them are newcomers. Whatever, what's your opinion of deleting this article? I think we should keep this article as redirection article to undzhi. Tigger10 (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

They've kept blanking the article after being given several warnings to stop (at least the most recent person to attempt page blanking), so at some point the whole "don't bite the newbie" thing is no longer valid.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, then I think we can block him/her. (Because I think that my comment is confusing so I emphasized delete at previeous comment to emphasize.) Tigger10 (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as a neologism, Create a protected disambiguation page per Squeamish. I did a search and couldn't see where this term is really used that often. There is of course the possibility of foreign language sources, but given that the Korean Knowledge (XXG) keeps deleting it as a neologism. The only benefit this page serves is under its original use as a redirect to Undzhi, since it's an alternate spelling for the town. Supposedly it's another name for Roh Moo-hyun, but I've found no RS that backs this up.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete While this word is quite popular among the Korean web community, having an article for this word makes no sense. This is not Wiktionary, nor is it notable enough. In my opinion what this entry deserves at best is a section under Korean wikipedia's page for the mushroom(http://ko.wikipedia.org/%EA%B5%AC%EB%A6%84%EB%B2%84%EC%84%AF) 1wonjae (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic content, completely unreferenced. Knowledge (XXG) is not Urban Dictionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete the current content, which is foreign-language Urban Dictionary fodder without anything like an RS. I'd like to suggest a redirect to put in place afterward, but as there are two credible targets, we may need to disambiguate. Unji is evidently an alternative spelling for Undzhi, a town in Tajikistan. It is also a Korean name for the fungus Trametes versicolor. Regardless of what is put in place here after the AFD, the article history suggests that some form of protection is going to be mandatory. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I second a disambiguation page and that it should be protected and watched, so I'm changing my vote slightly. I don't mind adding it to my watch list, but given the amount of nonsense that went on here, I think it'd be a good idea to delete the current page history to prevent reversions and start with a fresh disambiguation page that is protected from IP vandalism.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed with blowing up this page history, although there's probably no harm in keeping Dr. Blofeld's 5 April 2009 history (the first three revisions to the page), in which he creates a page for the Tajikistan town, then redirects it to the more common synonym, since we'll ideally be keeping a link to that page in the eventual disambiguation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Unji is famous slang in korea. --정과 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to prove that it's notable by showing independent and reliable sources to prove that it's more than just a neologism.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete and re-create the redirect to Undzhi. No evidence that the term is used in the sense claimed, and if it does no evidence that it has received enough coverage to be notable. Also, generally speaking, we don't have articles which give just a dictionary definition of a word and an account of how it came into existence, even for mainstream words, let alone obscure slang terms. This might be suitable for Urban Dictionary, but it does not belong in Knowledge (XXG). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. If Unji Chun or unji mushroom is notable, the slang can be mentioned – briefly – at the bottom of such an article. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unji Chun, which is korean drink which was sold until 1997, is not that famous until one of the its ccommercials become internet meme in korea recently. Unji mushroom is so colled 구름버섯(cloud mushroom) or yun zhi (simplified Chinese: 云芝, traditional Chinese: 雲芝) and English wikipedia have its own article. We don't need to keep this article, Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary.Tigger10 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation page wouldn't be a bad idea. I'll make the appropriate changes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I have changed the current contents of the article to reflect that of a disambiguation page, as is the current consensus. I didn't see any reason as to why I couldn't do it now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This would appear to be a WP:TWODABS situation. We generally don't create disambiguation pages where there are only two possibilities. The term should redirect to whichever meaning is most prevalent, with a hatnnote to indicate the other. bd2412 T 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that- I think that the city is the most prevalent, or at least it was the original redirect. Someone mentioned a soda by the same name, but I didn't see an article for that on Knowledge (XXG). It looks to have been produced by Guangdong Pharmaceutical, but I don't see an exact article for them. I see a university entry, but not the company.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

I added some hatnotes to the entries, then thought to search for anything with "unji" in it on Knowledge (XXG). I found mention of a temple in Japan as well as an ancient village in India. The temple might be removable because the article itself that it links to is a little undersourced, but the third mention will probably enable this to remain a disambiguation page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe a redirection to Undzhi is the most appropriate (i.e. status quo ante) because unji mushroom is a Korean word and no one in the English-speaking community refers to Trametes versicolor as Unji. If and only if an article on Unji Chun is created and deemed notable, a disambiguation page would make sense. Don't know about other usages though, but they seem pretty minor to me. A redirect to Undzhi with a hatnote will do. 1wonjae (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Undzhi with a hat note. Thank you for presenting a new option, Tokyogirl79. If more articles are found related to the term then Unji (disambiguation) could be created. Ghafurov District and Jamoats of Tajikistan even link to the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Leonida Rèpaci

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

single sentence page on a non-notable italian. Goalisraised (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Looking at the Italian Knowledge (XXG) article on him clearly indicates his notability. Even a quick check of backlinks would show that he won the Bagutta Prize, founded a newspaper, and been sufficiently renowned as a figure he's been on stamps! Morwen (Talk) 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Plainly notable; I've expanded it a bit to show notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Added mug of Italian stamp. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Abstract figurative

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

Created three years ago, still no sources. Appears to be a Knowledge (XXG) invented concept/syllogism. Checked google books and while there is about 309 hits for "Abstract figurative" none of them appear to actually talk about anything like this, rather just use the two words next to each other (like "something abstract, figurative something else") Volunteer Marek 03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot t • c » 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment A quick Google search reveals a number of people describing themselves as abstract figurative artists, e.g., http://www.josephyork.com, and some online art stores use the term as a category of art, e.g., http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolio/themes/Abstract_Figurative.html. But I could not find any scholarly articles or news articles about this category. Mark viking (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. No sources. First created in 2009 as a promotional article (see the External Links section) for the site nmotamed.com by User:Motamedd. It's original research for a dictionary definition of a neologism that has remained uncited on Knowledge (XXG) for three years. There is no indication that the concept is notable anywhere outside Knowledge (XXG).--xanchester (t) 05:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An unnecessary neologism.--Collingwood (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Several days ago (Nov 10) I tagged this for speedy deletion as nonsense. The second sentence of the article admitted that the proposed term might be a contradiction, which is true, as anyone in the arts would know: therefore the article made no sense. Another problem with a Google search is that on the internet, "Figurative Art" often means "the Human Figure in Art" rather than the dictionary meaning of literal vs. figurative, which remains the academic art namespace meaning of Figurative Art: realistic but metaphorical. The Google hits include not only those correctly discussing abstract and figurative as opposites, but also those that identify themselves as abstract figurative artists because they do more abstract, or expressive human figures rather than traditional realism. Some writers also misuse figurative when they actually mean figural. FigureArtist (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerome Boissezon

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete due to not yet having played a pro game - remake when he does. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete G3 hoax. The article is a duplicate of Daniel Petkovski with name and birthdate changes. The refs don't refer to Boissezon at all. The ext link still goes to Petkovski. No mention of Boissezon at the Sydney FC website, not even in the 2012/13 youth squad announcement article. The-Pope (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above. No mention of player in club websites of Sydney FC or Sydney United. Not included in AFC team sheet for U20 international match allegedly played, no reference to player on Football Australia website. Hack (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment interestingly, someone else created a duplicate page yesterday under the name Jerome Boissezon (footballer), which was deleted. Football-talents.com list someone fitting this description as existing, but nowhere else appears to. The creating user User:Ki to le's user page has this article, but with completely different information! Also note please he created both pages. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - football-talents.com is a user submitted website. There's basically no reliably-sourced evidence that the player exists. Hack (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but I wasn't convinced by it being any use anyway. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. Go Phightins! 00:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I tagged it for speedy deletion under G3. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike DeMark

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. AutomaticStrikeout 03:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:BASEBALL/N....William 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete with proviso - My google search yields only trivial coverage, however seeing that he's in AAA, there's a decent chance he will gain at least some coverage and might draw some interest from a reader, perhaps creating an entry on the Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players and redirecting there might be prudent. Go Phightins! 22:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He isn't currently with the Diamondbacks so that isnt prudent. Spanneraol (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wladimir Sutil

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. AutomaticStrikeout 03:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N ...William 13:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. OK, this is obviously ridiculous, as everyone recognized. There is no rivalry here. There will be revenge, though, next time we run into those ******s. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Alabama–Texas A&M football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alabama–Texas A&M football rivalry

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

No evidence that these two teams have a rivalry. They played 5 times in the last 50 years, and only once since 1988. GrapedApe (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability, as per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. First, the Alabama-Texas A&M football series is not rivalry as that term is normally understood. How could it be? It's only been played five times in 70 years. Second, the series is not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT because it is not a championship, bowl game or all-star game, nor does it satisfy the general notability guidelines as a series because the series has not received in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Third, it is the consensus of Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject College football that college football series should not have stand-alone articles unless the series is notable as a rivalry, not merely as a series. In the event of long-standing series that are not commonly recognized rivalry games, relevant content should be merged to the parent team articles (e.g., Alabama Crimson Tide football) or the team-season articles (e.g., 2012 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). This series is not notable as rivalry and there is no article content that is worth preserving that is not already included in other related CFB articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. There's no indication that this is an actual rivalry, much less a notable one. No sources and no prose, just a single table.--xanchester (t) 08:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. What Dirtlawyer said. I'm sure it's on as far as Alabama is concerned, but five games in fifty years do not a rivalry make. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Per Dirtlawyer. Although there is some unique history between the two programs with Bryant and Stallings, at least from the Alabama side I can say this is not a "rivalry". Just playing in the same conference does not constitute one either. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete, clear case of recentism bias due to 2012 result. Jhortman (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2012‎ Jhortman
Delete My arbitrary definition of a rivalry would be that it has to have been played at least once every two years. Go Phightins! 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Delete: pretty clearly spammy article for a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisolette Gilcrest

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

Vanity article about non-notable photographer/artist; trying for notability by association, without awareness of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

delete per WP:NOTYET. She has the potential to be famous surely but the level of exhibitions etc. is clearly at too low a level just yet. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete — This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. She does get lots of mention in lists of names, in somewhat reliable and unreliable sources. But nothing significant. Going through WP:BEFORE, sources showed the article contained a lot of puff. The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES in fact indicate a brief mention, her name among 119 artists exhibited, and her name in a long list of book prize recipients. There's also her name in a pile of very brief entertainment listings, and a minuscule mention in the promotional upcoming event announcement. The first shows she exists; the second can't really support prose on events that hadn't happened as of publication. I found confirmation in the Detroit Free Press that she had an exhibit at a local arts festival, but the coverage was about the festival, and only mentioned this subject. All of this indicates she falls short of both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The keeps outnumber the deletes, and there is no inherent reason to delete a list of this type. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in video games

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

This article is not a "list of LGBT characters in video games" but rather an unsourced collection of LGBT themes in video games. A merge is not necessary because there is nothing worth moving from this article. JDDJS (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic is notable, we have consensus that the topic is notable, and AfD is not cleanup: most characters are sourced in their respective articles and/or video-games; and if some entries lack sources just add sources or delete those entries, not the whole thing. Nothing has changed from the previous deletion discussion, and this new nomination doesn't introduce a new argument so it's redundant.

Also "this is not a list of characters but a collection of LGBT themes" is a confusing sentence, given that the list contains descriptions of LGBT characters. Would you mind to explain what you mean, so that we can understand the nomination? Diego (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Notable subject with reliable sources available. Insomesia (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep, noteworthy, but more importantly, educational and encyclopedic and of high value to the site. — Cirt (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep – it definitely needs a lot of clean-up, but every game on the list is notable, and there are sources discussing the characters available. I just added one. —Torchiest _edits 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete and counter argument it shouldn't matter which "game" is notable, it should be the character himself. This is a loophole WP:LGBT has been doing for a while now, that should end. Also, it is a list, it is most certainly have no educational value whatsoever. Encyclopedic is false as no Encyclopedia does this.Lucia Black (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I added a source discussing the character in particular. It should be possible to find sources discussing the characters for plenty of other games on the list, and if sources aren't found for some of them, they can be removed. I've also already pulled one listing that didn't seem to properly fit the article topic. —Torchiest _edits 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally these list get out of hand, its best not to make them if they're that wide in range. Whats next? List of African-American characters in video games? A source for the character to be notable just to verify that they are LGBT? it's alot more to do then verify that a character is LGBT. at least articles such as LGBT themes in comics has a more concrete encyclopedic, and notable aspect because their not focused on each individual character but rather that a specific character/comic made a difference to be ntoed in that article. This could slide if there were more realted to LGBT themed video games such as yaoi, shonen-ai, and yuri (japanese generes for LGBT) and each character in that series would be notable to have their own article. That would lower the range, and have a clearer focus. then again, multiple characters of the same game would appear, so it would be easier to list video games that have LGBT themes. But LGBT in general from video games may be over-the-top because the relevance of this character can go minor to significantly important. It's not helping anyone other than discovering characters that are LGBT, and that really isn't encyclopedic.Lucia Black (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny that encyclopedic is not a defined term in Knowledge (XXG), so your argument is reduced to "I don't think it's a good idea, but can't really explain why". Diego (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Creating sub-lists for yaoi, yuri and other genres is a good idea. But that doesn't preclude having also the current list. Diego (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note in response to Lucia Black's suggestion that "This is a loophole WP:LGBT has been doing for a while now": This is nothing specific to WP:LGBT. This is common across most or all of WP:CHAR's list articles. I suspect it's endemic to most "list of fictional X" articles frankly. It's really rare to find a properly sourced list of fictional items. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter-argument to your counter argument: items in list articles are not required to be notable by themselves, only the topic of the list needs to be notable. This is not a loophole, it's the guideline itself which states it (see lists where Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria). Diego (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Counter-argument to the counter-argument's counter argument: Lists where every entry in the list fails the notability criteria only work if there is a finite number of items on the list. It would be madness to have a list of all non-notable dogs that had died of distemper even though canine distemper is a notable topic. The examples listed in WP:CSC are finite. "List of minor Dilbert characters" is limited to the Dilbert universe and "list of minor Paracetamol brands" is limited by real-world commercial pressures. There is little to limit a list of non-notable LGBT characters in video games. Right now, since LGBT-related video games are only some 25 years old the number of notability-lacking entries on this list (96) may not seem unmanageable, but as the years progress and as LGBT becomes more mainstream in our culture this number is only going to grow at a faster rate (e.g. in 2010 alone we see the addition of 11 characters. By 2022 we may have 300 entries. By 2032 maybe 600.). Without notability as an inclusion criterion, this is an unbounded list. The idea that WP:N doesn't apply to the individual entries under CSC#2 doesn't mean much anyway except that the issue of significant coverage can be ignored. Some degree of individual character coverage in RSes is still mandatory because WP:V applies to all parts of the list just as it would to any article. If the topic (LGBT video game characters) is notable then let's write an article on that topic instead of making it into a messy and essentially indiscriminate list. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep, but (and this is a big one) the article needs serious work and very, very soon! The fact that statements like...

"One of the characters, named "Jolly Roger" in the level "Jolly Roger's Lagoon," is extremely likely to be a homosexual, due to the way he talks and sways as well as how his voice sounds. He needs Banjo and Kazooie's help in finding his "partner," Merry Maggie Malpass, who appears to be a poorly-dressed transvestite (also having the deepest voice in the game), who states that he/she doesn't want to be late for "Happy Hour" back at the bar, and that Jolly will need "a little relief."

...remain in the article/list is completely insane. How his voice sounds? WTF people? This is WP:OR at its bigoted, inflammatory and stereotyping best. This sort of thing doesn't come anywhere near being encyclopaedic. Endorsing the suggestion that someone can be "classified" as a homosexual because of how they dress, act or talk (without references to anything that even suggests the character might be) is disgraceful. Do I think a list like this might generally be of value, maybe. Do I think there are probably enough references for some of the items to build a notable whole? Probably. But no amount of notability should be able to get us past the fact that at the moment this is basically a giant WP:OR how-to guide for bullies and bigots. Stalwart111 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That example is, as you state, a regular clean up issue which does not need a deletion discussion. AfD is not clean up. Insomesia (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue still remains that it is just a giant list that will most likely never end or never have. List of fictional characters that are LGBT in sad media is just overwhelming. This better to be a category more than an actual list. WP:STANDALONE definitely needs to be refined to help with fictional elements or basically anythingbthat is basically more suited as a category. Its basically a list of a fictional element portrayed as LGBT. Encyclopedic may not be clearly defined in wikipedia, but it would also mean "encyclopedic" cant be used either.Lucia Black (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep but needs significant cleanup and likely a refocus on the "topic" of LGBT in video games with the character list as a supporting role. A few opening paragraphs to discuss the nature of LGBT in video games (its acceptance or non-acceptance, emergence, etc.) would help to flesh out this article, and I know there are sources for this based on sources I had to use for a character in Persona 4. The list, however, is going to need strong sourcing for each entry. Take the example Stalwart gives - without a source, its speculation. Again, falling back on P4, I know there are sources for specific characters being called out as LGBT, and of course, there's the whole Mass Effect relationship thing as another point. It just needs to be cleaned up and much better sourced. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You may not realize there is already an article called LGBT themes in video games, which I think covers a lot of what you mention in the first part of your paragraph. As for the second part, I've been culling, trimming, and removing original research and trivial bits, trying to start getting the list to a point where it contains characters that may have some actual coverage. —Torchiest _edits 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  - I wasn't aware, but I would consider the possibility, depending on how big the list ends up being, of merging the list into that one. At this time though, that doesn't change my keep vote for the list. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Tentative keep - provided that individual list item notability be made an explicit inclusion criterion per WP:CSC#1 (used for "most of the best lists on Knowledge (XXG)"), and listed in an expanded lede. Failing this, merge with LGBT themes in video games. -Thibbs (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The requirement you're looking for is having the work where the character appears be notable (not the character itself, per criterion WP:CSC#2). This is the de-facto standard for lists of fictional items (see List of fictional works in mass media, List of fictional books from periodicals, List of fictional rapid transit stations, List of fictional beverages, List of fictional medicines and drugs, List of Robotech vehicles, List of ships in the Matrix series...). Having each individual item notable by itself is not a requirement in the guideline, and it would cause all of these lists to be virtually empty. With the de-facto criterion (which the current list of characters already satisfies), the list can be kept in check avoiding arbitrary inclusion. Diego (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Delete: utter vanispam. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari

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

Autobiography by rich kid who belongs to a rich family. Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Nothing but a documentation of the subject's unencyclopedic comings and goings. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The two sources that come up Khaleej Times November 5, 2011 and Khaleej Times October 15, 2012 list his name as Suhail Abdul Latif Galadari, not Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari. From this, his last name appears to be "Abdul Latif Galadari" and his first name is "Suhail". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not notable, met celebrities. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - The source material in the article and what I found above mostly state that Suhail greeted a celebrity or warmly greeted a celebrity. From this, there appears to be an inheritance dispute. He seems like a good person, but there is not enough biography source material from which to write a Knowledge (XXG) biography article on the Galadari topic per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Meeting celebrities doesn't make a person notable. Most of the mentions qualify as trivial. There's not enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. As per reasons above. In case people are wondering how this happened, since I floated this article and now am agreeing to delete it: I initially was directed to a page (via the COI noticeboard) which looked like a real articlespace article. The name was long. I didn't notice the word "User:" in front of article title. Accordingly, mistaking it for a real articlespace article, I trimmed it substantially since there were few reliable sources, trimming it practically to nothing. Then I felt bad for the guy, thinking that this was a real article (ie which had been around in Knowledge (XXG) for a while and passed muster) and then I revamped it to be acceptable. Finally, I noticed the word "user:" in front and realized what had happened. So I floated the new content into an article, restored the contributor's user page. After floating it, I wondered whether the subject qualified as meeting WP:GNG, and agree the subject is borderline -- but maybe the person's family is notable and deserves an article since it is a major player in Dubai(ian) business..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari is from one of the richest families in United Arab Emirates. They are part of the top business families in the region. Their father was one of the first pioneers of Hotel industry in the Emirates. This article should not be deleted as Khaleej Times is the prominent newspaper in the country and he is one of the most renowned personalities of the country. The decision to delete the article will not be in line with the essence of Knowledge (XXG) and would only create restrictions in promoting the right information. Therefore it is requested that your team is able to extract more information from the sources in United Arab Emirates about the above personality.

He is also the owner of Galadari Motors, exclusive agents for Mazda in United Arab Emirates. In addition, they are the first people who brought the InterContinental Group of Hotels, Hyatt Regency and were the former owners of Gulf News, the first English newspaper of United Arab Emirates. We are updating the content for Biography very shortly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.60.13 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Who the dickens is "we", my anonymous friend? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete He has met Bollywood celebrities... WP:BIO and all that. Perhaps the family or the companies are notable. The person certainly doesn't seem to be. Plus apprently his 'team' is editing the article now? §FreeRangeFrog 00:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Windham–Campbell Literature Prizes

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

these awards haven't even been held yet. so it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume future notability. only found 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep It's not CRYSTAL because three reliable sources already cover the award. The 7-9 categories combined are worth more than the Nobel Prize Literary Award, the richest literary prize in the world. Normally prize amount is not a factor, but certain awards are rarefied, it would be strange to ignore that aspect when considering the notability of this award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

3 sources doesn't make it necessarily notable. i can find 10 sources on my local school award and it doesn't make it notable. size of prize does not make it notable, significant third party coverage and actual existence does. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The award exists, it was legally established a year or more before the first award is announced because it takes a while for books to be submitted and judged, the first award will be March 2013 for books published in 2012. Two of the three sources are particularly strong, the New York Times and LA Times, they are lengthy articles in two of the top newspapers in the United States - the number of sources is important, but so is the strength of the notability of the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The award has not occured. this is like creating an article for 2014 NFL player of the year. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

More like the 85th Academy Awards scheduled for February 2013. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

yep and that Award has existed for decades this is not the 85th Windham–Campbell Literature Prize . LibStar (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Note that while particular prizes have not yet been awarded, the institution/mechanism of the Windham–Campbell Literature Prize already exists. The article is about the prize, not the prize winners. The New York Times and LA Times references discuss the prize itself, not any particular prize winners. This article has multiple reliable sources and I believe passes the notability threshold. Mark viking (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Green Cardamom; passes WP:GNG, no WP:CRYSTAL issue presented by this article which discusses the establishment and funding of the awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Not notable, lack of coverage by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Gernot Wagner

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

Deleted in the past:

Review contribs of the editor who recreated the article and the data in the infobox. Also note that the editor was able to paste a complete copy of the original article.

Also:

As was listed in the original deletion: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:PROMO, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Setting aside the procedural problems, looking at the sources, every source is either a primary source or unreliable (except the Harvard Crimson which is too little to base an article on). Per WP:GNG there are not multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11. (non-admin closure) --xanchester (t) 08:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

G700 Blog

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

Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:WEB and is not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. Knowledge (XXG) is not for writing articles about personal blogs. –BuickCentury Driver 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve MacLean Public School

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Non-notable K-8 school. Eeekster (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete and redirect: Non-notable primary school. I couldn't find anything substantial about it with Google other than routine, trivial, tangential and local coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to school board, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Standard practice for non-notable schools. RS coverage is not enough to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep: The school was named after a notable Canadian, Ottawa-native and graduate of a high school in the same Ottawa-Carleton District School board. This article has received almost 500 hits since its publication on Knowledge (XXG) a few days ago. The school is only a few years old, so it is not unexpected that it may not have as wide a presence on Google as other schools. This, however, does not trivialize its importance as a source of information to the community and public at large. The article is well written and has been edited to include several references to reliable third-party sources to make the information verifiable. Also refer to this template which lists other Ottawa-Carleton District School Board schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:OCDSB. Many of these schools have published Knowledge (XXG) articles. The publication of Knowledge (XXG) articles on certain schools and not others, especially within the same school board could appear discriminatory. This inconsistency would result in under-representation of certain schools in relation to others. --Lfroms (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Lfroms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being named for a notable person does not make a school notable. Primary schools are generally not notable, and this one is not an exception. Being part of a template doesn't establish notability either. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comes under arguments to avoid. Other non-notable primary schools in this school board will probably be dealt with in due course. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Knowledge (XXG) article has been further modified to highlight notable accomplishments and projects. The school has won various national and provincial awards. It is believed that the notability criteria have been met and the subject matter is worthy of notice. The information in the article is verifiable with multiple reliable third-party sources. Also, the school has and continues to receive significant detailed coverage in various publications and the media (see citations). --Lfroms (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That all falls under WP:Run of the mill, nothing extraordinary for an elemetary school. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable primary school, only six years old. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Age is just a number, and numbers are not used to judge notability on Knowledge (XXG)" WP:OLDAGE. The fact that this school is only 6 years old does not influence its notability. According to Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines, a school is notable " if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" WP:ORGDEPTH. Further, the guidelines indicate that a school "can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources" WP:CLUB. There is verifiable evidence of coverage of this school and its notable accomplishments by reliable independent sources including the media and publications by nationally-known organizations. Therefore, the school is notable. --Lfroms (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Age alone is not a defining element, but older schools are more likely to have notable histories. This is a new school without notable history (due to its age!) or architecture whose "achievements" include winning a couple of prizes, just like most other schools in the world. It has been mentioned a few times in local media, just like most other schools in the world. Being named after someone notable does not make it notable itself, as notability is not inherited. I repeat, it is not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." WP:ORGSIG. In the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, the criteria for notability do not appear to rely on a "notable history" or "extraordinary" accomplishments of a subject matter. It is reiterated, that according to the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, this article fulfills the requirements for notability. The school has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. It is further added that the jist of the arguments to keep this article is not based on placing this school in a category of schools that have a notable history and are in some way "extraordinary". The purpose of this Knowledge (XXG) article is to include this school in the collection of schools already published on Knowledge (XXG) as a source of important information to the public. --Lfroms (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

But I see no "significant coverage". I see a few articles about the school in local media. So what? That could apply to every single school in the western world. That's not significant coverage. That's ordinary, run of the mill coverage. Failing that, we must look for notability elsewhere, and frankly there is none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, "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" WP:SIGCOV. The publication sources cited in this article have indeed addressed the school in detail (e.g. newspaper articles). It is true that many schools of the western world, including those which already have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles, are covered in regional or local media. However, regional coverage also counts towards notability. The Knowledge (XXG) guidelines states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" WP:ORGDEPTH. Further, the school has been covered by nationally-recognized organizations which publish outside the local area (see citations). --Lfroms (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles

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

This event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the source that is not the promoters own site is a link to a live results service. I am not able to find any sources that are not primary news sources just reporting routine results, the type any and every sports event gets and that the NOTNEWSPAPER policy explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia".

Also nominating :

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

for the same reasons. Mt king 08:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

*Speedy keep as nominator offers no pressing or legitimate reason for redlinking this article concerning a notable sports event with historic significance. --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked for Knowledge (XXG):Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep for the sake of common sense. Although it's a seemingly hopeless uphill battle against a ridiculous deletionist itch that Mtking has to scratch on any article he determines not worthy of Knowledge (XXG). Luchuslu (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on not making an argument. You might want to try using guidelines to defend a position. --No unique names

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Meets GNG what more is there to discuss. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You should really read WP:GNG. This certainly doesn't meet that. --No unique names

Delete, possibly with salt. Fails GNG. --No unique names 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete, can't find any usable sources for this event to pass GNG. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment, Quote from WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I see enough reliable, independant sources on K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles to feel that the topic meets the policy. If it is presumed to satisfy WP:GNG, the burden of proof is on the deletionists, not the contributors. K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16 needs a little more work, but has more inherant notability because it is part of the larger K-1 World Grand Prix, historically the most prestiguous kickboxing tournament in the world. Users should WP:BEBOLD and try to improve pages instead of nominating them for deletion on first sight. Luchuslu (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is never on the negative, that's logically impossible: you can't prove a negative. If the article passes GNG and there are enough reliable, independent sources as you say, the burden is on the affirmative to provide those sources. As it stands, of the five sources in the article, one is primary with little more than fighter pictures, three appear to be MMA blogs showing routine result coverage (and with no apparent editorial control), and the only source that could really be considered reliable, MMA Junkie, is also only providing routine coverage (ie. there is an event and these people are participating). There may be better sources than these out there, but unless they can be found and put in the article, I don't see a reason to keep it. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  - Last time I checked, the word "routine" isn't in WP:GNG. That's the argument that I'm making. As for reliable, the "blogs" you refer to are articles by three of the most respected combat sports sites on the web. If one primary source and four secondary ones isn't considered enough coverage, I don't know what could possibly keep the deletionists satisfied. The article isn't A-class, but it meets the bare minimum for a stand-alone article in my opinion and the opinion of WP:GNG. There is enough coverage, the coverage is from reliable sources and the sources are independent of K-1. That should be enough.Luchuslu (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but it is in WP:N(E) (see my comment below). Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Examples of routine news according to WP:N are "most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena." I'd argue the coverage of these events are more lasting and less routine than those examples. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ (see my "Merge" below) - I agree with the comment above by Luchuslu. Of course, being a tournament (all events related to this Grand Prix are connected), it passes WP:EFFECT. The reliability of the sources are fine to me. Poison Whiskey (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete This event was a qualifying event for the qualifying event for the final event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Rather than reply to each, this is a reply to all those saying passes GNG (or other guideline or essay), please re-read the nomination, this is not about does the article pass the GNG, if you read of the whole of WP:Notability (which is the page WP:GNG redirects to) you will see that the second paragraph says "

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Knowledge (XXG) is not (my bold).

This nomination is based on the fact this article is excluded under WP:NOT policy and specifically "Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG).", and in order to show that this sports event is worthy Encyclopedic note, those advocating for its retention need to show that it has received significant coverage of the event outside of routine reporting of event and its results in reliable and diverse sources, to date that has not been done. Mt king 23:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So lets look at those two sentences you put in bold, which you admit are the main points of your argument. The first one "Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" is listed under the catagory WP:NOTDIR which specifically deals with issues that aren't even remotely related to MMA event articles. The examples given in the section include yellow pages, geneology and sales catalogs. You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Secondly, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)." I'm assuming your issue falls under the News Report catagory. In that very paragraph, the first sentence says "Knowledge (XXG) considers the enduring notability of persons and events." That link goes straight to Knowledge (XXG)'s notability page, headed by WP:GNG which you don't seem to disagree with. In my opinion, both of your arguments fall short of convincing me that these pages aren't at least meeting the bare minimum for a standalone article by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. Luchuslu (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly the WP:NOTDIR exclusion is relevant, WP is seen by some fans of MMA/K1 as a directory of the results of all MMA/K1 events, policy is it is not. Secondly the key word you glossed over is "enduring", which means in this context more than just routine reporting. To demonstrate enduring notability you need to show that this event has received significant coverage outside of the routine reporting of its results in reliable and diverse sources. Mt king 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete As Mdtemp pointed out, this was a qualifying event for the qualifying event for the final event and it's hard to claim that makes the event significant. In addition, the only sources are either results or an announcement that the event will be taking place--hardly siginficant coverage. That's especially true when WP:N(E) says "routine news coverage of such things as ... sports ... are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. ... sports scores ... should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches ... are probably not notable." I do think that, with proper sourcing, an argument can be made that the final event, when it happens, is notable since it will determine the K-1 champion. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

~~Suggestion~~ Merge - Can't we just merge all articles in one? since all these events (K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles, K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16, K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Final in New York) are connected, we'll have the info of the entire Grand Prix, not just the finals. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be OK with an article on the entire tournament, but I don't think a simple merge is sufficient. The existing articles are essentially just fight results, so more prose is needed. In addition, they include many bouts that have nothing to do with determining the K-1 champion (only 4 of the 15 bouts in LA were relevant) and there's nothing that says how the rest of the final 16 were chosen. Papaursa (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROSE doesn't exclude articles that are more list-based from meeting WP:STAND guidelines, as long as they still meet the site's content policies. I feel my previous statement shows the page meets WP:Notability despite Mtking's disagreement. I would refer him to WP:NTEMP, as he seems to confusing the word "enduring" with "ongoing." However, I would be OK with a merge to single article titled something like "List of 2012 K-1 Events" as a way to resolve this matter. Unlike the UFC where such a page is overly cumbersome due to the number of events, K-1 has few enough events for that to be a reasonable compromise. Luchuslu (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what a list has to do with my comments. There's already a List of K-1 events that includes the events under discussion, as well as several not yet held. I'm fine with the LA event and Final 16 events being listed there, but that has nothing to do with them having their own standalone article. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood my previous comments. The argument by many people is that an article with just the results fails under WP:NOTDIR. I was pointing out that it's more similar to a list, which would pass WP:STAND under some circumstances, this being one of them in my opinion. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not confused anything, nor am I ignoring WP:NTEMP re-read what I have posted above. What these two events lack is coverage outside the routine reporting of results and routine reporting of results does not demonstrate notability. Consider for example, every NFL game this weekend will get far more coverage than either of these in world wide mainstream media, yet none of them will be notable. Mt king 20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your earlier argument completely. What you fail to understand is that there is a significant difference between the arguments you're applying to these articles and what the policies imply. You missed one major point in WP:NOTDIR. "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., 'although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.'" (Bold added for effect). I would consider the qualifying event for the most prestiguous once-a-year kickboxing tournament in the world and the first round of said tournament would be considered both major and historically significant. Another key point from WP:Notability that you seem to glaze over, which I'll put in bold as well. 'Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.' The word "or" is important for obvious reasons. I would also disagree with your comparison to a week of NFL games. A page on Week 8 of the 2012 season clearly fails on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, but one on the NFL's 2012 postseason, like 2011–12 NFL playoffs, would meet Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. Consider these tournamnets like the K-1s postseason. Once again, I am willing to compromise to a 2012 in K-1 Events page if that will end these seemingly neverending arguments. I don't like spending my weekends arguing about policies any more than you do. Luchuslu (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So then what is, and where are the sources that demonstrate, the "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" of this event ? Mt king 02:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You can read up on the organization's history on their website's history section. Here's an article on Bloddy Elbow about the 2012 Grand Prix's cancellation and its impact, as well as significance , and here's an aticle about Alistair Overeem winning the 2010 Grand Prix and being considered the No. 1 fighter in the world, showing the organization has some of the best fighters in the world competing in it . That's just what I came up with in about five minutes. Also, I have a "2012 in K-1" article in my sandbox. Still trying to extend the olive branch if you'd like to compromise. Luchuslu (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep as we all agreed years before to keep the Final 16 and the Final of the K-1 organisation (both heavyweight and MAX). It is very informative from my point of view. We have pages for every UFC events and can't have for the K-1 finals? Wake up, people! Keep the Final 16 (for MAX too), delete the K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles if you want. Vermount564 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you read WP:ATA, "it is useful" and "other articles exist" are not valid reasons to keep articles. Mt king 20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did "we all agreed years before to keep the Final 16"? For someone who's first edit was less than a month ago, that's quite a recall. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that the only sources for the Final 16 article are two one line mentions that say the event will happen (one from K-1) and one that merely lists the results. Where is the significant independent non-routine coverage? Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then someone should WP:BEBOLD and add some like they did for the Los Angeles event. Luchuslu (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added some references on K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these are significant coverage--they all just give the fight card or the results (or in the case of the Weekender "article" says how to buy tickets and to go to the K-1 website). There are hundreds, if not thousands, of newspapers that listed the schedule of today's NFL games and they'll all carry the results tomorrow (with far more details than any of these sites give) and yet none of those games are considered notable. Just because an event was held in your favorite sport, doesn't make the event notable (as WP, not you, defines it). Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I vote keep - this was a broadcast event, and with all other broadcast sporting events, this acts as a very useful record of who fought, who won, etc., and could potentially be expanded upon later. Sgtkabuki (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If every televised sporting event was notable, we'd have thousands of baseball games each year! Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct, an article on Week 8 of the 2012 NFL season wouldn't pass WP:NOT. However, covering the 2011-12 NFL Playoffs does pass WP:NOT. These events would fall under the latter. And just because an event is held in a sport you don't care for isn't a basis for persistently attempting to delete the articles either. Luchuslu (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You've missed several of my points. First, I said I was fine with a well sourced article on the entire tournament (like the NFL article you referenced), but explained why a simple merge wouldn't do. Also notice that the NFL article had lots of prose. Second, as a former fighter I've been a fan of kickboxing probably longer than you've been alive, but at this site I'm a WP editor and believe in adhering to its policies. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So if you are a former fighter and fan of kickboxing, how come almost every contribution you've ever made on Knowledge (XXG) have been aimed at tagging or arguing for the deletion of martial arts/MMA/kickboxing pages? Luchuslu (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple--I don't base my decisions on WP:ILIKEIT. Instead I look at things like the notability criteria and whether or not there is signficant coverage in independent sources. If the article meets WP standards, I'll support keeping it--but I won't blindly support articles just because I'm of a fan. To claim every K-1 and UFC event is notable is ridiculous and counter to WP:EVENT. Tagging articles lets editors know that the article could use improving, so I'm not sure why you oppose my doing that--unless you prefer WP have poorly sourced articles on topics of questionable notability. WP is not meant to be a repository for sports results. For that there are the organizaional websites and/or sites like sherdog. I think it's illustrative to consider that in the long, illustrious history of U.S. boxing going back into the 1800s, WP has 119 in the American boxer category. Compare that to the 874 people listed in the American MMA fighter category for a sport that was created relatively recently. The number of American boxers is matched by the number of MMA fighters listed just from California. I have graciously answered your questioning my motives. I would say your time would be better spent improving the articles instead of complaining about people who want to apply WP guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for questioning your motives, and I do agree that many MMA fighter pages are of non-notable fighters. I myself have nominated a few of them for deletion. By my point was that instead of tagging and nominating articles that pass WP:N simply because no one has gone through the effort of properly sourcing the articles, WP:BEBOLD and try to improve the article. The mindset that articles which aren't properly sourced but do pass WP:GNG and other Wiki guidelines should simply be deleted instead of improved baffles me. Luchuslu (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We've gotten away from the topic at hand, which is the notability of this article. I will say that I never nominate an article for deletion until I've done a search for sources and believe that there isn't enough to support notability. Of course, others might look at the same sources and disagree with my assessment. However, my track record shows that I am in the majority a large percentage of the time, so I must not be too far out of line. If you want to continue this discussion, we should move it to my talk page. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:EVENT and fails WP:GNG since all sources are routine sports coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG does not address so-called routine coverage. WP:EVENT is debatable at best. Luchuslu (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Luchusu is correct about routine not being mentioned in WP:GNG, but the fact that WP:N and WP:EVENT are both WP notability guidelines makes me inclined to follow them. If you ignore WP:EVENT then you can essentially claim every major league game is notable since they have plenty of coverage, and I don't believe that. Papaursa (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Luchusu also needs to read the part of WP:N that says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Knowledge (XXG) is not." and since the WP:NOT policy says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." passing the GNG is not relevant to this discussion, the question is are the sources available just "routine news reporting" then the article fails WP:NOT and should be deleted. If we look at the sources, the liverkick.com one is headed "Live results", the mmajunkie.com is also reporting on event announcements (leaving aside the question of is a website that has a rumours section a reliable one) the bloodyelbow.com source is again reporting on scheduling (again there has to be questions about a "media stack focused on empowering rapid publishing" in relation to what WP would consider as having a reputation for fact checking.) the prommanow.com source is also just a results page, and finally we can ignore the one from the promoters own site. Mt king 06:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I have read WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:EVENT. Second, I feel the definition of "routine news reporting" is very subjective. I feel there should be some clarifications to what is considered routine in WP:MMANOT, as that would give wiki users a better idea as to what events are worthy of standalone pages. All the examples of routine coverage given in the previous policies (in my opinion) are less notable than what many pages that have been put up for AfD entail. Here is a composite list of the examples given: most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," viral phenomena, announcements, tabloid journalism, wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, film premieres, and press conferences I can see what Mtking and Papaursa mean with their comparison to sports scores for NFL games as an example, but they fail to recognize that a major, prestiguous tournment from a high-level kickboxing organization are inherantly more notable than a regular season game. Outside of the sports scores example, I don't see any examples that compare to this article. I also disagree with Mtking's analysis of the article's sources. As someone who works in journalism (not as a blogger, as a reporter for a major newspaper), I feel that the pages meet the minimus standards for reputable. Remember that most sports sites have things like "rumor" sections to keep up with the social media world. It comes down to a simple difference of opinion between what two groups of wiki users see as "routine." And once again, I have an omnibus article for K-1 events in 2012 made up in my sandbox if you're willing to compromise. I'm willing to do so if it will end this constant bickering between the two sides. Luchuslu (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, the sources used will routinely cover all MMA events, that is there job in the same way that La Gazzetta dello Sport covers sport in Italy, as for the omnibus artical, you don't need my permission, be bold and do it, when this page gets deleted then you can create a re-direct if you want. Mt king 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep The event held an attendance of 7,000 people, more than most sporting events that have articles on Knowledge (XXG), and the card was scattered with kickboxing and even mixed martial arts notables. The latter brings me to my next question, i noticed on events like this (Over the Limit (2012) and Bound for Glory (2012)) both hold similar attendance records and havent been nominated for deletion. Ive read the guidelines on Knowledge (XXG), im trying to argue that this K-1 event with that attendance record and being broadcasted on most major cable sports networks should hold no argument as far as notable enough is concerned. Just a thought. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains virtually no well sourced prose and is largely just a list of stats in the form of fight results. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The article contains well sourced prose concerning historically notable fight results. --Keep UFC Articles (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock

Comment I like Poison Whiskey's suggestion of creating one article for the tournament as a whole. I'd agree that the tournament is notable, I'm not as sure that an individual qualifier event for the tournament is notable. CaSJer (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. WP:SPORTSEVENT deems the final series to determine the top champion of a top league to be inherently notable. As K-1 is the top league in kickboxing and the K-1 World GP Final 16 is the first part of a two-part series to determine the top champion in the league, it is therefore according to this guideline inherently notable and is no different in kind with respect to the sport of kickboxing than the Super Bowl is with respect to American Football, the World Cup with respect to Football, or the Olympic Finals with respect to Olympic sports. The notability of the rest of K-1's annual events is another discussion, but the Final 16 and Final 8 are the two most significant and definitive events in the sport of kickboxing. Ultimoprismo (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) for a first edit. However, I just looked at WP:SPORTSEVENT and it says the final series, e.g. "Stanley Cup Finals" not earlier eliminations. Your argument might work for the Final 8 event. In addition, it says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and these articles are just fight results. I do see that several editors have agreed that an article on the whole tournament might work, but that it would have to be more than just a listing of fight results. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good knowledge for an IP that has been repeatedly warned for vandalizing wiki pages. Luchuslu (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)