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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is about a non-notable lightweight boxer. Boxrec currently ranks him 497th in the world and 37th in the UK--clearly failing WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. There is also no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable boxer. There's no significant independent coverage and he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree, does not meet WP:NBOX Ren99 (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eleventh constituency for French residents overseas#2012. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability. Article claims he was a martial arts student and a very unsuccessful political candidate (9th in the district primary), neither of which shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Eleventh constituency for French residents overseas#2012 as happened with the even less successful Romain Arcizet. Chris857 (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaker is truly not notable, but I can live with the redirect. Papaursa (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Marinescu was not notable last November, and she isn't notable today. I encourage readers to look through the arguments brought up at the previous AfD. This time, I will simply say that the sources presented are hardly the "significant coverage in reliable sources" demanded by WP:GNG. We have a blog post, another blog post, tabloid trash, a press release, another blog, corporate spam, a news brief from a dubious outlet describing her as "naked and without inhibitions", some random news brief, a blog post, a puff piece on a facebook post she made, more tabloid trash, more puffery, more tabloid trash and yet more empty, titillating cruft. If this is the level at which Marinescu is covered, then we can well do without an article on her. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, lack of reliable sources. Mabalu (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong| chatter _ 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete according to the arguments of the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator has obviously not really checked out the sources, because he missed the ineffable twaddle, the shameless bullshit, and the ridiculous crap. However, it does seem a shame to delete such a monument of self-parody, containing as it does such clunkers as:

• In February 2012, Tatiana Marinescu took part of the “Lambertz Monday Night Chocolate and Fashion Show”.
• The dress weighed 30 kg (66 lb) and is said to cost around $270 000.
• She also got into the public eye due to her voluptuous measurements

and my personal favorite:

• There have been rumors linking her romantically the footballer Bastian Schweinsteiger. (Think Young Frankenstein: "He vould have an enormous Schweinsteiger!")

EEng (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just a man with a job. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sorry state of the article as nominated was because much of its previous text was a copyvio, and was removed in 2010 with little attempt to salvage any of it. A better basis for judging the subject's notability would be the biosketch that our previous article copied from, here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dean of libraries is not an inherently notable position, and I can't find evidence of high academic impact for his publications. But in this case I think his wide service on various governing boards (not all of which have been restored to the article yet) and the 2002 medal are enough to carry the day. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #2 (highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level); the medal is named after one of the founders of the ALA. In addition to that, I agree with David Eppstein about the accomplishments of the subject as a whole.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as nomination withdrawn. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete: dubious notability (and the photo is highly suspect!!) Quis separabit? 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: About the photo. This The Hindu article uses some photo which i don't think matches with File:Anurag looking at the camera.jpg. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Four references in National newspapers, one exclusively about him. The photograph was dubious, but the article seems legitimate. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His novel, "The Inscrutable Americans" is a cult classic and a subject of discussion in many a conversation over coffee (despite how much the novel might be disliked by critics). It is notorious for its honesty, spontaneity and rustic humour. There are many one-novel authors with Wikipedia pages (Arundhati Roy and G. V. Desani for example) -- so that should not be a reason for deletion. The photo is fake or of his younger self (thus outdated). His novel is read and discussed in online lists and boards (like "sasialit" for example). He is reviewed in the book, "Critical Essays on Indian Writing in English" by Jaydipsinh Dodiya [1] -- mowglee 12:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with (talk me) --jona 14:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan8888 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Upon reconsideration I have decided to withdraw this AFD. Quis separabit? 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was relegated to the Tobin's Spirit Guide (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An article about what appears to be an unremarkable film studio. The author claims that sponsorship by Sony gives notability. This claim is not referenced, and I'm not sure how much this sponsorship means, if anything. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article claims that they produce films with "absolutely no budget" - this in itself could be a revolutionary feature. I wonder why they need sponsorship if they can do this? Peridon (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any highschooler can make videos with their cell phone and upload them to YouTube with no budget. Zad68 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kids working as volunteers "supported by corporations" to make films for Youtube and Facebook with other volunteers is laudable, but not notable unless such work has received coverage in reliable sources. Lots of g-hits,[2] but no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

"Films":

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom and MQS. GregJackP Boomer! 03:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly. No independent reliable sources. Association with Sony is unclear and undocumented, and notability is not inhereted anyway. Zad68 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WilyD 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A defunct Korean semi-professional football club. This is a follow-up to AfD of ROK Air Force FC. The three teams nominated for deletion were missed in the previous AfD. Unable to find if they played in any FC cup competition. Bgwhite (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cheil Industries FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Non notable clubs who by the looks of it have never played a professional game. Seasider91 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - there is no indication that any of these clubs meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the existence of the page Gyeongseong FC and Pyongyang FC rivalry and the associated Korean wiki pages makes me nervous about deleting some of the nominated teams. As does the presence of Pyongyang FC in the list of winners of this Korean Tournament in the 1930s - [3]. Nfitz (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Chohung Bank FC - Chohung Bank played in the Korea Semi-Professional Football League which at the time was the First Tier league in the South Korean football league system. League records indicate that in 1970 Chohung Bank won the Autumn season competition and in 1971 finished runners-up. There final title was in 1974 when they won the Spring season competition. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Pyongyang FC - This club appears to have historical significance (and sources) if you place Korean Wikipedia into Google Translate or refer to the Gyeongseong FC–Pyongyang FC rivalry. Pyongyang is the capital of North Korea which adds a further dimension. The club won the All Korea Football Tournament in 1934. A Korean expert needs to develop this article. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Cheil Industries FC - Cheil Industries shared the Korea Semi-Professional Football League title in Spring 1964 and Autumn 1968 and finished runners-up in Autumn 1967. They finally won it outright in Spring 1970 with reference to League records. The club won the Korean National Football Championship in 1966 and 1967. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment - With reference to AfD of Korea First Bank FC and AfD of ROK Air Force FC, the deletions for Korea First Bank FC, Keumseong Textile Company FC, Korea Coal Corporation FC, Korea Automobile Insurance Company FC, Korea Exchange Bank FC, Seoul Trust Bank FC (also known as Korea Trust Bank FC), Commercial Bank of Korea FC are in my opinion unsound as these clubs played in the Korea Semi-Professional Football League which at the time was the First Tier league in the South Korean football league system. All of these teams appear in the League records with ROK Air Force FC being the exception although even that club was runner-up in the Korean National Football Championship in 1951 and 1976. League Octopus (League Octopus 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

With reference to the WP:FOOTYN essay as the above mentioned clubs have played at the national level of the South Korean league structure they are assumed to meet WP:N criteria, the Korean FA Cup having not existed until 1996. League Octopus (League Octopus 07:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keumseong Textile Company was runner-up in the Korean National Football Championship in 1965.

Korea Coal Corporation won the Korean National Football Championship in 1964.

Seoul Trust Bank was runner-up in the Korean National Football Championship in 1983. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

In light of the above evidence in my view the "Chohung Bank FC Three" should be kept and those deleted in the AfD of Korea First Bank FC and AfD of ROK Air Force FC should be reinstated (with of course some additional work emphasising their notability). The List of South Korean football champions and List of Korean FA Cup winners provides an excellent starting point. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment In relation to the notable players for Chohung bank FC there is some discrepancy here as said former players wikipage states he played for a differant club which League octopus has mentioned therefore we must assume this club has had no players of note play for them Seasider91 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - regardless of any sporting notability they may or may not have, more importantly they all fail WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - articles have been significantly improved and now meet notability requirements. GiantSnowman 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you base that bold assertion on? Have you checked for sources in Korean? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem an odd claim that they fail WP:GNG. Generally when a team is current, and fails WP:GNG and it is hard to find much mention about them on the Internet. But here we have a team that hasn't been around for 70 years, and vanished in a war ... and yet you can find stuff without much effort. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They are three terrible articles in terms of presentation and I can understand GiantSnowman's comments above. I hope that my revamped articles for Chohung Bank FC and Cheil Industries FC gets at least two of the three on the right track. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment All articles have been re-written and in my opinion now meet WP:GNG through existing or potential coverage (and there appears to be a lot) in reliable independent sources. With reference to WP:FOOTYN I also raise the issue that as the clubs have competed in the national cup that existed at that time they "are assumed to meet WP:N criteria". It would be nice if some South Korean editors would improve the articles further, in particular the Pyongyang FC article where a lot of material could be translated from the article in Korean Wikipedia. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"The predecessor to the current FA Cup was the National Football Championship that had been staged in every autumn since 1946, with all the senior sides including semi-pro, university and military clubs competing for the right to be called the best team in the peninsula." This confirms the status of the Korean National Football Championship as taken from the Korean FA website. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• In light of League octopus' rewrites of the articles with reliable sources I'm now convinced they meet WP:GNG so Keep Seasider91 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does this mean that some of the deleted articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROK Air Force FC need to revisited? That AfD doesn't seem to have been very well handled in retrospect. Not sure why we'd be deleting any teams at a semi-professional level; as some of those deleted teams have not only played in a national cup, they have won a national cup, is it safe to assume that most if not all have at least played in a national cup? Seems many editors involved once again fell under the spell of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I raised this issue earlier this week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Existing and proposed Korean club deletions WT:FOOTY but received little response. I have viewed the deleted articles at eNotes and they need to be totally re-written. While in due course I am willing to undertake this task, it would be much better if the task was undertaken properly by the Korean editor (Footwiks / Pfrd) who prepared them in the first place. There has been misconduct in the form of the User repeatedly recreating articles that were deleted via AfD. (reported on 12 July 2012) and a warning for sockpuppetry but one can understand the reasons why the Korean editor feels so aggrieved (whilst not condoning his actions).

I think that those who over-see the AfD process should now reach a consensus on the best way forward for the unsound Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROK Air Force FC deletions and at the very least get back to Footwiks and explain our position. This is not a matter that should be left to fester further. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Self-promotion of a piece of software from student term paper without indication of notability and with no independent refs Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage from independent sources. No reviews of the software from well-known sources. Looks like a fine piece of software but that doesn't make it notable. Zad68 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no significant coverage from independent reliable sources; thus no indication of notability. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - passes WP:N is a much stronger argument than linking to WP:TRIVIA asserting that it's thus a problem (doesn't seem to apply), or arguing that you don't like it. WilyD 07:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama on Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not (Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.) and is full of WP:TRIVIA and WP:DIARY and WP:BADIDEA information, it should be deleted or merged/moved into an article that covers Communication of Barack Obama but just his twitter accounts are not independently notable of Mr. Obama and notability is not inherited, however his use of the media and in particular social media is significant so a new article based on his communication strategy would be of historical significance but Twitter account are not notable, not for Ashton Kutcher, Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber all of whom have had more followers. And remember just because something can be sourced does not make it deserve an article, per common sense public figures minutiae are over-publicized to the point that the Personal Life of Jennifer Lopez, Fashions of Kanye West, or Marijuana Usage of Snoop Dog are all verifiable and referenceable, nevertheless they do not meet the editorial standards of a Wikipedia article and should be incorporated and summarized into the parent topic article or if forked merged into an article on a broader topic. Also attempts to be bold and change the name and incorporate his YouTube, Facebook, and personal social network were met with fierce protectionism from an overzealous editor with OWN issues and page protection so community discussion was the only option, nevertheless this specific topic is not notable not matter how much you love Barry or Twitter cross referenced articles are not of note.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• it passed the Good Article criteria Talk:Barack_Obama_on_Twitter/GA1. It seems unlikely that an article could do that and be NOT an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter passed Good Article criteria... and still got either merged or deleted. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, that is neither here nor there, lot's of articles including ones tangibly identical to this one have been GA or DYK articles as have others and they still have been deleted. Do you have an opinion as to whether this article is notable or not?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • as the article stands, it is missing the most encyclopedic view of the content. the meta-analysis of how Obama and the campaign have made twitter/social media work for them and the influence on how other politicians and campaigns use it. but there are plenty of sources that could do so: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Thats just the first page of google.books hits, theres plenty of stuff in the news as well. Obama's use of social media might be the better framing of the topic rather than the focus on individual twits and stats. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree with Red Pen here. I'm not saying it would be guaranteed to pass WP:NOT, but it is an arguably broader (and more interesting) topic that potentially touches on politics rather than trivia. That topic could likely be turned into a valid article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Red Pen, I think that you, since you looked at the matter in some detail, should have a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and maybe start something. I also think there are issues with GA in general, but that's for another time. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• note to closing admin - if the result of this discussion is "delete" i would request that the article be userfied into my space. I think this version and perhaps some others in the history along with the sources I listed above and analysis and commentary in news articles would allow this to be converted into something encyclopedic, interesting and informative. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (!!)/merge (?) - Well, Communications of Barack Obama can be created anytime, while this article is... not well-standardized, not easy to discuss encyclopedically, and not interesting. The stats themselves are not interesting. Look at the sandbox of User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama; when everything about Twitter is trimmed down, the result is less than staggering... and painfully more than unsatisfactory. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not confuse a trimming for a buzzcut. I would not hold that up as a comparably good article as it stands, though I understand you may have very particular personal preferences. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems fairly silly to renominate so soon after it closed. This is the same nominator no less.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we re-list to encourage discussion if there is no consensus but not normally if so many people have already commented. Perhaps unless there is a sudden change in consensus the nominator ought to hold an RfC on the matter. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. WIkipedia is not paper. As long as there are fans of the topic which can fill it with verifiable information from secondary sources, there is no reason to delete the pqage, all the more to mewrge it somewhere. I fail to see why twitter of POTUS is less notable than some obscure pokemon or porn actors. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Yes it not not paper but it is also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "it has fans" is a perfect reason to delete not keep, and this is not a vote.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful, I've voted "delete"/"merge" on this article. Even Ty Russell is obscure and somehow notable, and even Pokemon creatures are more worth reading. Use of sources do not indicate significance but just retelling of what the news says about Twitter activities of one high-profile person. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here are the reasons that speedy keep is applicable for, 1. nom withdrawn 2. the nom is disruptive 3. the nom is banned, per WP:KEEP. None of these reasons apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this could qualify as disruptive, considering LWC's probably only doing this (again) because we didn't agree with the hack and slash move and rewrite they attempted, repeatedly. Rather than use their sandbox and/or propose a change and try to find consensus, this seems to be a somewhat petty response. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, now I see that this already came up at ANI, and IRWolfie made his voice heard. Fair enough, we'll try this again, I suppose. [reply]

• Comment - I understand we have in our midst at least one editor with a PhD in this field; perhaps if he/she could unleash some of his/her analytic sophistication it might be easier to convince other users that there's some merit in this; also, a while ago over on the dyk template there was a suggestion to widen this out a little, and consider this particular medium alongside YouTube etc; Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted, full of WP:Trivia and thoroughly un-encyclopedic in nature. Also opens a Pandora's Box of nonsense for similar articles. Is every celebrity who's active on Twitter now going to get an article for their account? Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and lets talk about why 'per nom' isn't a great idea. Firstly, the article is in no way a long and sprawling list of statistics, I wouldn't even argue there's an undue amount of statistics, considering how much polling goes on surrounding everything political. BADIDEA, how does that even relate? The information is more than just miscellaneous and disjointed statements which include both the words 'obama' and 'twitter', if you see specific instances of trivia, I don't deny that as a possibility at all, but that's what the editorial process is for. Point something out, and I'll see if I can fix it. Mentioning things that happen in a roughly chronological order is far from making something a diary; and I suspect you're beginning to throw policies you've heard of at it until something sticks. If you want an article that covers all the communications comprehensively, that's a noble goal, and probably worth writing, but that has nothing to do with deleting this article. As to the rest of the nomination, which is now an extended litany against fear Twitter, I should just point out that being bold works as justification once; when you get reverted, the next step is Discuss, and no, "this is bullshit" is not discussion. As it stands, this specific topic, is, in fact, specifically notable, since there are specific sources which give substantial discussion/treatment of the topic. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not disjointed!? There is a whole section and even a picture reserved for an unrelated MTV VMA Kanye West Taylor Swift fight over a microphone and Obama's irrelevant commentary on the subject, this is UNDUE weight and NOT in no undue terms.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While overexcited, I'll give you this one, that section doesn't actually involve Obama using Twitter. Although there may be a way to address it if there's a source that treats it in that context later, I think I'll go ahead and remove that section as essentially unrelated. This is how we WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Now, per nom is that much less an appropriate justification. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Twitter is basically used the same way by everyone - nothing special except the content. Even then, it's not all that special either. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. If anything in the content of any individual Tweet (which is likely not done by him anyway....) was really earthshattering, surely it would already be in his main article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the article would tell you a little about when he's actually tweeting and when he isn't (although if you're assuming even that's a lie, perhaps you're right, the article just reports what the sources say), but you underestimate the amount of Wiki-worthy content surrounding Barack Obama, the main article is not an exhaustive list of the sufficiently notable subject matter related to him. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article was on the topic of Barak Obama and the media, and covered a great deal of media interactions with different sources and outlets, and provided some context as to why this was a notable topic, I might be more persuaded. If Barak Obama was very active on Slashdot, would Barak Obama on Slashdot pass WP:NOT? I think not. To say Twitter is more important than Slashdot only implies that notability is inherited, and not everything on Twitter is important. Quite the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...That is a thing no one has said but you, you realize? Anyways, regardless of what you think or think not, if there's an article on Twitter and not Slashdot, it's because a) there are reliable third-party sources on the use of Twitter and b) someone wrote the article for it. As is, though, mentioning Slashdot seems like a non-sequitor. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Four days since the last discussion and I am seeing nothing new being brought to the table here. It appears the nominator tried to move the article and instead of continuing discussion or starting a WP:RFC brought it straight back here. I don't really care whether these articles exist (they pass WP:GNG, but possibly fail WP:NOT) and the result will likely come down to how many people feeling strongly either way turn up. However nominating this so soon after the last one closed with no new arguments is a bad idea. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This renomination is completely inappropriate, as the last AfD closed four days ago and this nomination is also bringing nothing new to discuss. It is just the nominator badgering the issue because they disagree with the article's existence. As I pointed out in the last discussion, sources like this show that the subject is completely valid. Expansion of the article's scope or renaming the article is something that should be done via talk page consensus and not by renominating the article for deletion. This should just be closed now. Silverseren^C 02:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TRIVIA and trivial. If Obama ever says anything encyclopedic that's 140 characters or less (and that's undeniably from him) it can go into his existing article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are better places for the content of this article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama - again, everything that is notable has independent references, but not everything that has independent references is notable. This is IMHO yet again a case of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, vs. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, vs. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There is nothing, nothing in this article that is independently and inherently notable separate from Barack Obama (and maybe a one-point mention in Twitter). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this argument, you would have us 'merge and redirect' everything in every article on Barack Obama and anything, unless you can be more specific. What exactly are you looking for to consider something 'independently' notable? Is Chlorophyll independently notable of Plants? Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, even without notability guidelines of any sort, 'sun is hot' would not be an article title. Solar luminosity, on the other hand... Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is very little that is notable about Obama on Twitter. What criteria do you use that makes statements made on Twitter more notable than statements made by Barack Obama on Facebook or Barack Obama on CNN or Barack Obama in the White House Press Room, etc? This series of articles (xx on Twitter) is meta-reporting, which is not what this project is about. Twitter is a communications platform; and while sometimes the use of a platform is notable, those instances are rare and belong either in the article about the platform or in the article about the subject. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, ideally this article wouldn't include statements where 'tweeted' could be just as easily replaced by 'said'. However, while I don't see how being more notable than any of those things come up, a variety of sources do treat the subject of Obama on twitter, as in using twitter to a specific end, particularly in the context of both campaigns and in advocating particular political things. Does ^[1] suit what you're looking for, or is it not quite the right direction? There's a variety of others already in the article, and more that aren't, I imagine there's something that would fit your criteria? As an aside, though, we should get over having it in the main Obama article; it's full, and the content is more closely related to the articles on the campaigns and public image. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darryl from Mars, the fact that we have the article Solar luminosity and not Sun is hot is exactly the point why we should not have articles like Barack Obama on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter and Justin Bieber on Twitter - 'Solar luminosity' is talking about all sun-like bodies and their temperature effects - which would be like an article talking about all celebritites and their use of social media. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saying it wouldn't be a title because it's not a noun phrase, it doesn't prove anything in connection to this article, and, frankly, isn't much different from if I tried to argue 'other crap exists', since you don't give the reasoning as to why this subject falls into the category of 'things with sources that should be excluded', you just say it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is an unnecessary fork where everything that is notable is in the lede (and much of the lede is trivia). Reporting on reporting on comments (articles about reporting about unsourced and unverified comments) is Synthesis no matter how it is presented. Any remaining material of note is already in either the Twitter article or the BIO article. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question Can you guys tell me how sources like Communicator-In-Chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House or Yes We Did: An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand or this book section don't support an article existing about Obama's use of social media? Silverseren^C 07:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is about Twitter, not about social media in general. The case for the latter article (something along the lines of Barack Obama's use of social media) may be a whole other case than Barack Obama on Twitter. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming the article isn't an issue. In fact, the nominator clearly wants it to be renamed anyways (though "Communication" is too broad, imo). Silverseren^C 08:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• renaming the article is page-move vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dirk, do you mean to suggest that while the book, 'communicator in chief' in particular, is support for an article on that subject, the chapter in the book relating to Twitter is not? Or would you reject both? Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm .. WP:CRYSTAL .. I don't know. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, perhaps that's a fair response. Anyways, although this wasn't the way you emphasized it, does that chapter, at least, present information/analysis you'd consider being appropriate for the topic of 'on Twitter', and not just Barack Obama in general? The link is just a preview, but if you search 'BarackObama' as one word in the side box it takes you to an appropriate section. I admit I'm still not sure what makes something 'independently' notable, e.g, are any Beatles songs 'independently' notable of them? If it's just specific treatment, it doesn't get much more direct than 'Barack Obama's continued use of Twitter', the title of a section in the book. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is a concept that I am now starting to wrestle with. Never really thought about subjects which have significant media coverage, general use, whatever, but which are not notable by themselves. As you say above, Chlorophyl has an article, Green has an article, Grass has an article, but we do not have Grass is green (or Greenness of grass or whatever) - whereas the latter has many sources, it is mentioned in proverbs, songs, movie-titles (all notable by themselves, many have Wikipedia articles). Which ones are in the white area, which ones are in the black area, and which are in the grey area? To me, Barack Obama is in the white house, Barack Obama's use of social media w/could be grey, and Barack Obama on Twitter IMHO shoots through to the black area. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, I think the problem with Grass's greenness is, you've chosen an idea so ubiquitous that, no one has considered it worth discussing formally, indeed, that's what the idiom is for (not the one about it being greener on the other side, just the one claiming it as an obvious truth). Indeed, if there was something by Aquinas on grasses and the cause of their greenness (spoilers: it's the divine), that might become something worth mentioning in its article, cf. Planet. The fact's mentioned, but not discussed; we don't use proverbs and titles of movies as sources. The sources you get for Obama on Twitter are of a fundamentally different nature, I suspect. Still, I'm far from having the leverage to discount a humble opinion, just to disagree. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FART, WP:POPCRAP, WP:HOGWASH. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOW you're WP:JUST being WP:SILLY. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not about political ephemera which nobody in ten years is going to care beans about. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument goes both ways, Darryl - maybe it was not notable in the first place? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, which is why you and I are discussing your requirements for notability/inclusion, since a variety of reliable sources strikes you as insufficient, right? What we think of it in ten years is irrelevant on the face of things. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think in 10 years and far beyond people will still be analysing and commenting upon Obama's use of twitter and other social media - as the First Social Media President his twitting is going to keep getting dragged out just like the Nixon Kennedy First TV presidential debate is the standard by which all others are measured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quick, what network carried that debate? What channel was it on? What time? I imagine I can find the answers here on WP, but I bet they aren't in John F. Kennedy on NBC. If I pull out my crystal ball, what I see in 10 years is that the BO article says "Barrack Obama was one of the first US presidents to make extensive use of social media in public communications". --Tgeairn (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not saying the current article in the current status is worth defending, just that there is probably something here that could be used as a basis to build into something that would be an appropriate article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree that there are facts and sources here, and that someone(s) could use some of those facts and some of those sources and create some kind of article; but I don't see how combining those facts and sources together makes this article useful in an encyclopedia. As I mentioned above, it's meta-reporting on the reporting instead of using the reporting as sources about a cohesive topic. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by 'meta-reporting on the reporting' that isn't exactly what a tertiary source should be. Are you saying the sources used don't have any analysis or commentary, and are just re-printing tweets? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see that my meaning wasn't entirely clear. What I mean is that there are two separate possible article topics here:

• First, there are the communications from Obama and others (the "tweets"), which are being delivered through a communications medium (Twitter). We can treat those as any other PRIMARY source, and sometimes do. Of course, as simple communications that are not subject to editorial review and are by their nature SPS, they wouldn't get a separate article from the subject(s) or author(s) of the communications.

• Second, there is the reporting on the communications. Reporting on how they are novel or new, reporting on tactics and reach (audience), etc. The subject of these sources is the communications and the platform, in this case Twitter.

Having established the possible article topics, we then have our role as an encyclopedia. It is pretty well established that we wouldn't have an article about the first subject area (the tweets themselves), and I'm not trying to say that this article is that. We could theoretically have an article about the second subject, but only with RS about that second subject. In other words, we need multiple reliable sources independent of the subject providing objective commentary on the subject. The subject in this case is the reporting on the communications and the platform. We don't have those sources yet. In time, there may be - but they almost certainly won't be about the reporting on one entity and their tweets. They will likely be about the role of twitter in politics or the role of social media in elections or something similar.

For example: Assume Jane Doe is a notable figure, with her own BIO article, who has a verified twitter account @JaneD. One day @JaneD tweets that she "Got engaged to John Smith today". That tweet is PRIMARY, but since it's a verified account we would likely allow it as a source for her BIO article. When various media outlets (independent reliable sources) report on the engagement, we would update the BIO to reflect those new and better sources for the engagement. The media at this point is still only sourcing the fact (Jane Doe got engaged to John Smith). If an expert in media or engagement or some related field notes that @JaneD was the first notable person to use twitter to announce an engagement, they might then write an article or paper on the impact of social media (or twitter) on marriage announcements. The fact that Jane was the first would likely be mentioned in their writing, but the subject of that article is now something other than "Jane Doe on Twitter". The communications platform is separate from the fact, and the notable use of the platform is separate from the individual.

Another example: If John F Kennedy had kept a journal (diary), we would use those entries in their relevant places (Race, election, civil rights, missle crisis, cold war, trip to Dallas, etc). They would be self published thoughts, ideas, and opinions and we would treat them as such. If that diary were published daily (in real time) in the New York Times, it would not change our treatment of it. If that daily publishing started a trend where other public figures also published their diaries daily in the NYT, someone would probably write about the trend and how it was affecting relations or politics or travel in Texas or something. We might then have an article about that (the trend or impact). At no time in that scenario would we ever have an article about JFK in the NYT, as that topic would not be inherently notable (even though he is, NYT is, and the subject of his entries is).

This is getting too long for an AfD, maybe it's time for me to try to put this into an essay. I believe that this an important point, and that it is being missed in many of the responses to this and related AfDs. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that makes rather more sense. Although I feel like in this instance you may be forcing a distinction that isn't strictly necessary (for example, how do our 'Correspondence/Letters of...' articles fit into this dichotomy?), I understand how the sources used could develop into a 'Twitter Campaigning' article or something of the sort if we purposefully took a more general view of it. But even if this article as it stands isn't the ideal framework for discussing the phenomenon; it is, almost undeniably, how the sources discuss the issue. They are not (yet) taking an abstract look at the techniques and general trends, they focus specifically on Barack Obama's use. If, under the diary entry of the day, there were a series of articles discussing how JFK's diary entries in the NYT are affecting the Cuban Missile crisis and got us to the moon; that would be the notable topic, because that's what the sources are taking note of. Few things are inherently notable. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - IDONTLIKEIT, I really don't like it, but I'm not going to put my personal preferences infront of policy. The article subject is very clearly notable as witnessed the numerous quality references in the article and hence the appropriate response is to Keep. I would be happy for a merge to 'Communication of Barack Obama' or similar. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--I agree with Tgeairn and Dirk. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-sourced, well-documented, and well-written. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it has significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:N, and since the coverage is not about one event at one instant in time, thus not being a mere news report. Also, the renomination is too soon. I do not see how several of the nominator's rationales apply at all, since it is not a "diary" and not just a listing of statistics. Also, it passes the "not inherited" hurdle, since it has its own coverage, and is not just "This hat is notable because Obama wore it" or equivalent cases. Being associated with a world-famous person is absolutely not an impediment to achieving independent notability, if it has been noted in sufficient depth by multiple reliable and independent sources, as has this topic. I would applaud creation of Barack Obama's use of social media and the merger to it of this along with his use of Facebook, Youtube, and other social media in his efforts to attain and keep the US presidency, since a comprehensive article would avoid duplication and fragmentation. . Edison (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Without citing any Wikipedia policies, this article seems to be useless, a fan effort, and better suited as a trimmed down version on his main page or at the proposed "Communication of Barack Obama." Information regarding his campaign should be merged to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 page, and the 2008 campaign if there's information regarding it as well. Citing Wikipedia policies, I agree that it should be deleted as per WP:TRIVIA. WP:BADIDEA, and WP:NOT. JDC808 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing the threshold of notability by easily passing Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Furthermore, this article is a very reasonable spin-off from the main Barack Obama article. As the use of online communications, both by the public and by the leaders of nations continues to increase globally, aspects of its usage will only continue to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, which Wikipedia articles are typically based upon. Another idea is to merge the article into a new "Communications of Barack Obama" article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I agree with Northamerica1000 --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT, especially WP:BADIDEA. This article also suffers from a general notability problem. If you pare the lede down per WP:INDISCRIMINATE removing and summarizing all of the unnecessary statistics, you end up with a basic statement that such a twitter account exists, has a lot of followers and is being used. So, what? Where is the lasting notability? These simple statements belong in other articles and the twitter article itself does not rise to the level on its own -- it is trying to inherit its notability from the biography. WTucker (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reading seems to have conveniently elided the second paragraph of the lead. And, you shouldn't just stop at the lead if you want to make that sort of judgement. In fact, upon some review of the sources, you'd note that the last thing this article has trouble with is passing notability requirements. Check the sources mentioned a few comments up first, and we can discuss the issue of notability in more depth. And as an aside, is the citing of WP:BADIDEA just a way of saying 'nothing else on this page fits, but I still want to say it doesn't belong'? Because that's really starting to mystify me. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't think any other type of website that would pass WP:WEB or WP:GNG but would be deleted under WP:NOT. I don't see the point of Twitter-hate--if this were an article about Obama's (or Justin Bieber's) blog it would clearly stand or fall on the notability guidelines alone and not provoke this level of drama. If there's a trivia/indiscriminate info issue it's with article content, not with the mere existence of this article. I don't oppose merging into a broader article, however. Also, I thought that immediate renomination was banned, even with a "no consensus" result. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep All the ubiquitous shit on Wikipedia, and someone nominates a GA for deletion? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this opinion should be ignored since it is a misuse of speedy keep and also presents no argument in any policy or guideline.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep does apply as it is clearly a disruptive nomination. What I'm fairly sure will be ignored is your oppose-badgering. Besides, it's going to be kept; the faster this is closed, the faster you can open a 3rd AfD! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a disrupive nomination, and to even call it that is in itself trying to be disruptive. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete -- There is strong community consensus that any X on Twitter article is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. This whole thing is a massive violation of WP:NOT. The idea that you can find sources that mention the words together means there must be an article about it is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever made on Wikipedia. By that same logic we should have articles on Obama and sports, Obama and food, Obama in Washington DC, Obama and terrorists and so forth and so on. This needs to be deleted, and I suppose anything noteworthy should be merged elsewhere but if there were indeed anything noteworthy it would already be in the main article, so we can very easily just delete this whole thing and lose nothing of any value. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, let's refine your statement. The opinions find the articles inappropriate in general, this does not mean -any- article is inappropriate. Indeed, upon reading, many of them allow for such an article if there are very good sources which focus primarily on the topic. I reiterate that the "most ludicrous" argument outside the nomination is the idea that the main article can be used to determine notability more effectively than actual sources. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it is a general consensus and therefore applies.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the distinction between the words 'general' and 'specific', or 'generally' and 'always'. And as I said, anyone who reads rather than merely counting will see this is an apt exception to those generalities. Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Barack Obama on twitter, facebook, and google+ etc would be a much more notable article that could be more comprehensive than just twitter. Each year of Barack Obama's presidency has sourcing for an article but articles on each term are better editorially similarly each of Obama's useage of social networks could have its own article but only all of them together give you a good picture of what is truly encyclopedic which is its importance in that he adopted a new medium and used it to his advantage as predecessors used radio, television, MTV to their advantage in the past.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Write it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into to-be-created Barack Obama and social media article or equivalent. The topic of "Barack Obama on Twitter" is a sub-topic of "Barack Obama and social media", which includes the use of social media by Obama, and Obama as a subject of social media attention. It's clearly an important encyclopedic topic, the use of social media by officials and politicians (and the attention they attract) is very widely covered by secondary sources, and particularly when it comes to Obama, him being the most significant US official and politician. On the other hand, the sub-topic of Barack Obama on Twitter is in itself barely worthy of an article and even if it is, it's better to have it covered in the more general topic for editorial reasons (no need for a sub-article considering the relative weights of the subjects). While an article on the communication of Obama could be interesting, it wouldn't include Obama as a subject of social media attention (and it can also be covered in Public perception of Barack Obama). It is therefore appropriate to merge as proposed, which can be conveniently implemented and followed-up administratively through Template:Afd-merge to. Cenarium (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This debate, and all the others on "X on Twitter" come down to a fundamental difference in view of what wiki is/should be. There are conflicting guides which are quoted by either side. The result will come down to the closing admin and their views on such topics.PumpkinSky talk 20:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Celebrity use of Twitter. In sympathize with the argument that the Obama article is way too long already, but frankly we are getting into WP:FART territory here. Almost every aspect of Obama's life and participation on the Web is covered by the press. That does not mean we are compelled to have comprehensive articles about every piece of it, and readers are better served by comprehensive treatments of how politicians in general use Twitter to promote themselves and connect with citizens. Steven Walling • talk 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As previously explained and affirmed, anything the leader of the World Community says (i.e. The President of the United States) is WP:Noteworthy. Like it or not. When President Barack Obama says, televises, delivers via media, or for that matter Tweets something, it carries relevance to the World community. Therefore, Barack's tweets carry the necessary weight to be termed "Noteworty". Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga appeal to fanzine-types, and do not carry to weight of World Leadership. Ren99 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything he does is noteworthy?? Anyways, noteworthy is not the same as notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the words of Peter Griffin, "Oh my God, who the hell cares?"[9] Seriously, I don't see why this needs its own article. Thechased (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this debate is pretty closely related to User:Jimb0 Wales' statements made in his 2012 "State of the Wiki" address which WP:POST to "cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else" as stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Wikimania.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not mentioned in the article (this version)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CWUR World University Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Ranking does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ranking (and organization, for that matter) was created in July 2012 by Nadim M. Mahassen, an assistant professor at King Abdulaziz University (see WHOIS, KAU faculty website, Registrarism). Any citations attributable to CWUR merely report the ranking received, but no significant coverage of the ranking itself exists. This appears to be a ranking created and marketed by a non-notable academic, and its promotion on Wikipedia early on in the ranking's existence (July 8) is troublesome. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. —Eustress ^talk 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google News and Google Books reveals essentially no coverage of this rather dubious ranking. Since it is very easy to create a ranking methodology and set up a website giving the results (potentially very useful for self-promotion or promotion of an agenda) I think we should go on the side of caution here and wait for more coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to College and university rankings#CWUR World University Rankings where it's mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation if notability is achieved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I declined this A7 CSD but can't find any sources which would suggest that this actress is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.I was the one who CSDd it. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 04:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: she had small roles in half a dozen films: [10] Comte0 (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Her career is just beginning. Her coverage is lacking. This could change in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too soon. Cavarrone (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Better By You, Better Than Me. Per Bushranger: We have to honour copyright  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural nom on behalf of the IP who requested it here. IPs deletion rationale is provided here A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google News only turns up the subjects website. Appears to be self-promotion or WP:ADV and does not appear to satisfy general notability guideline or any other notability standard that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- or, if thought appropriate, redirect to an article associated with the election in Nevada's second congressional district in the 2010 Democratic primary, which is, I believe, policy under WP:POLITICIAN. I can't see any other reason to retain this article based on what I see, and on a brief search; notability is certainly asserted but I don't see anything that meets Wikipedia's policies, at least as far as I understand how notability works with respect to lawyers at trial. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnotable attorney who had an arguably notable case, but notability is not inherited. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as a matter of housekeeping, if this article is deleted, Ken McKenna (footballer) should be returned to Ken McKenna, where it lived until it was moved to make way for this page. Ken McKenna is currently a disambiguation page listing only the footballer and the attorney, and if Ken McKenna (attorney) is deleted there will no longer be any disambiguity. TJRC (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Better By You, Better Than Me or Judas Priest#Subliminal message trial. Backmasking#Court cases might be another possibility. "Merge" because there are a few relevant details in this article that are not in the aforementioned articles; "redirect" because they're cheap. The coverage and impact of the civil suit would be deserving of a stand alone article, and that would eventually be the best target for a redirect. Location (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Ken McKenna (attorney)" a likely search term? Although redirects are cheap, I don't see what even this cheap redirect would buy Wikipedia. At most, I think, a hatnote to Better By You, Better Than Me on Ken McKenna when Ken McKenna (footballer) is moved back. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. No one is likely to search the name with "(attorney)" attached to it. Location (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point about the merge, though; there were a couple lines of info not present in the target article; I've added them. Even if this article is retained, they're on-topic for that article.

• Redirect to Better By You, Better Than Me as required by the attribution policy. As content from this article has been merged there, this article must be retained as a redirect, as otherwise the attribution chain is broken and the text in Better By You, Better Than Me becomes a WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real indication of significance, and it exists as a purchasing guide to the franchise more than anything else. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Without too much digging, I see many hits on various VG sites [11] including more than trivial reviews. Is there any reason why this doesn't pass WP:GNG? Article quality is poor, promotional and gameguidey, but the topic seems notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without prejudicing the discussion, if the subject isn't deemed notable, I'd suggest merging with Bloons TD, which has better references (PC Welt, Wired, IGN, GamePro, PocketGamer). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --doncram 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ’Keep'Plenty of sources. Stedrick (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Three more sources: Forbes, Joystiq, and Wired. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues. It is systematically biased, synthesized and POV, and against the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Systemic bias: The title, the lead (unsourced and pov) and the entire concept on which the article is based is problematic. It is written with regard to the dubious social constructs relating to a particular society. The article states "Many non-Western cultures have informal words which refer to white Westerners." There is no clear definition of either 'Western world' or 'white' used across societies. 'Western' can mean any country from Latin America to South Africa or even Japan, South Korea and Singapore. 'White' is used to describe people of very different skin color; e.g. in Central Africa it is used to describe lightet skinned black or brown people. So the usages of the terms vary from one society, culture and language to another.

Synthesis and POV: As the article is almost entirely unsourced I had to spend considerable time looking up all the definitions of the different languages. Most of the definitions I could find don't mean 'white westerner', or 'white' as a common sense of the word. In most cases the words mean foreigner, alien and non-native. Some definitions mean the color white and sometimes used to people, but not necessarily to westerners, but to any people that culture considers 'white'. Some definitions mean different nationalities. Few definitions mean literary 'westerners' but used regardless of skin color.
I found that most of the words either do not exist or cannot be found and that the given foreign language words have different meaning:

• of 18 words listed, I could not find, after thorough search, the definitions of words given here.
• 9 words mean simply foreigner. The words mostly used to any people, thing, idea, or culture that is not indigenous to the particular culture.
• 7 words mean different nationalites, e.g. Dutch, Dane, French, American, English.
• 6 words mean white. Some of the usages of white in these languages simply mean the color white, and/or can be used to light pigmented black people to asians as a denomination.
• 3 words mean west or western. (a lot of languages have no definition of western people)

Moreover, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I do not see the point of the existence of an article of word definitions.

As the article uses the definition of a term which does not have congruent meaning in different languages and cultures, and falsely group unrelated meanings in one article, it is justified to delete on basis of systematic bias, synthesis, pov, and dictionary-like nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FonsScientiae (talk • contribs) 16:34, July 16, 2012‎

• I refactored your nomination to use the AfD template and added an unsigned template to it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Why would we want a list of non-English words on Wikpedia that mean 'white people'? The current list has so many problems - the title is problematic (are all Western cultures 'white'), the inclusion criteria contradicts the title (it allows words for 'foreigner'), the vast majority of the entries are unsourced and unverifiable... Sionk (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Colleges teach a class called Western civilization, and Wikipedia has an article explaining that The term has come to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration or settlement of white culture, such as the Americas, and Australasia, and is not restricted to Western Eurasia (Europe). So the part of the nomination about system bias doesn't apply. Your other points seem valid though. Remember, when you nominated something for deletion, you should tell the creator of the article. I went ahead and did so. [12] Dream Focus 15:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant that there is no consensus on which countries constitute the 'Western civilization'. Some believe that countries, which has substantially adopted elements of Western culture, like Turkey, Japan, or South Korea are part of the Western civilization. So based on this uncertainty inclusion of these countries' languages on the list is dubious. But ultimately, this argument is unrelated to the conclusion of deletion nomination. FonsScientiae (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, distinguishing my argument to keep the well-documented Brown people. I am willing to change my mind if someone can source this better. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing, non-database (i.e. specific) coordinates, specific administrative divisions (Tibet AR is 1.2 million km²), or Chinese/Tibetan to prove the existence of this "village", which may well be a town or township (no surprise, many WP editors are keen on calling towns cities and vice versa when they have official designations). I have successfully PROD-ded this before, and the last time around, the same issues applied, except there at least were coordinates, albeit accurate only to the nearest arc minute. GotR ^Talk 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until we have proof that this place exists. So far all we have is the word of one person (i.e., the author) that there is such a place as Dongqiao. The author needs to stand up and tell us where he got this info. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based new info added by Dr. Blofeld. The coordinates appear to be wrong though: There is absolutely nothing there in the satellite picture. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. This article may have been created because it was a red link in template {{Nagqu Prefecture}}. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to re-create - Non-English names that do not have native Latin characters can be very difficult to identify. "Dongqiao" could be one of multiple translated spellings from either Chinese or even a Tibetan language. So far I can't find anything on Dongqiao, but that's not necessarily conclusive evidence that the place doesn't exist. If someone can find this place, perhaps with a different spelling, then it can be re-created. --Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Dr. Blofeld and GotR below. --Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems to be located in Amdo County: [13][14].--Cattus ^talk 00:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not very clear. Judging from those references, it is uncertain whether Dongqiao is a village or town, or something else. The first reference (cjxb.ac.cn) refers to the "Dongqiao area" and "Dongqiao region". The second reference (mindat.org) refers to the "Dongqiao Ophiolite" and the "Dongqiao Ophiolite Complex" (ophiolite [q.v.] is a geologic feature). It seems that at the present time, all we can say is that Dongqiao is something or some place, not necessarily a town, within the Nagchu Prefecture of Tibet. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another source saying it's in Amdo: [15]. I have found no evidence that it is a populated place.--Cattus ^talk 19:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the coordinates given in this page [16] on Google Maps and the only thing near that location seems to be a road or a railway track.--Cattus ^talk 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a place about 5 km northeast of those coordinates: [17].--Cattus ^talk 20:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps says the place is Qiangmazhen.--Cattus ^talk 20:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also looked on Google Earth within 0.1° latitude and longitude of the new coordinates TAP gave. Besides Qiangma, the only settlements I can see are villages with clearly Tibetan names ("Dongqiao" is unlikely to be a Chinese transliteration of Tibetan): Naluoba, Selezabu. And I can't be missing something, either: this is inhospitable terrain at 4,600 m+, with, unless my eyes are deceiving me, lakes/ponds that are shown as starting to freeze on 16 October 2011, so there hardly are any settlements around. GotR ^Talk 21:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The location provided by Cattus above appears to be (from satellite view) some sort of industrial installation, or perhaps a remote military base. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: done a bit of work to the article. ⇒TAP 19:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but the coordinates you provided were for a Dongqiao in Xiangcheng, Suzhou, i.e. on the totally wrong side of the country. GotR ^Talk 20:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. ⇒TAP 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am beginning to think that Dongqiao is an area or a region, rather than a village or populated place. Kind of like referring to the Llano Estacado in the United States. The Tripmondo reference that was recently provided does not refer to a village, and there does not appear to be anything at the coordinates given. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both village and geological regions are notable and have coverage in multiple reliable sources. Why is it always left to me to expand, doesn't anybody else have access to google books? I strongly suspect the population and agric data is for another village, probably southeastern China, doesn't sound like typical Tibetan produce! The population is too high for a Tibetan village, but I couldn't confirm the province, Funan I'd imagine, I think there appears to be a settlement there of the same name. Also I don't like the rough database coordinates for villages I always like to match it up with a settlement you can view on satellite, the exact location will need chasing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right about your suspicions—I have accounted for them in the article itself. And 6,900 is too high of a population for any Chinese village, but not a more urban residential community.
• I've checked the National Bureau of Statistics page for Amdo County (as claimed in the article), and have searched every division of the county for villages named "东巧", and returned ZERO results. GotR ^Talk 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Its possible of course it now has a different name, but multiple reliable sources mention it as a villageabout 90 km west of Amdo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say its there somewhere around where the coordinates say it is as the book source which says about 90 km west of Amdo as practically matches my own calculation of Qiangma at 90.7 km west of Amdo. Also looking on google earth I've found quite a substantial frozen lake named Dongqiacuo (Dongqia Lake) as cuo means lake to the southwest of the coordinates. I can't locate a settlement though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voila. I followed the trail and found the exact coordinates here. 90% sure that's it as it as its the largest settlement in the area and an educated guess would say it is fairly near the lake of the same name Dongqia Cuo. Its between northeast of the lake and southwest of where geonames says it is to the southwest of Qiangma. Check it out on google earth. A trial and error as I found numerous villages in the area but based on the lake name and the geonames and it being the largest and practically only settlement between the lake and Qiangma I'd hazard a guess that that's it.

If you zoom in on yahoo maps it is shocking how many villages there actually are in Tibet. I believed previously there was about 800 but the databases at the time didn't record them all. Probably nearer ten times that amount.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the revisions by Dr.B, a true master in handling this sort of subject DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I 2nd that. Dr. Blofeld did an excellent job.--Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the revised version, as the added references show the subject is clearly notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident that the settlement in the coordinates now is correct based on several things. a] One source says its around 90 km west of Amdo which Qiangma is according to google map calculations. b] Geonames indicates thst its south of Qiangma and this is backed by a book source which mentions the rock formations and Qiangma being north of it. c] A give away is the fact that there is a lake called Dongqia Cuo and you'd naturally assume a village to not be too far away. Between the lake and where geonames says it is and its the nearest settlement of significance to the lake so its a good guess I think. There are other villages to the northeast if you follow the path and it would be nice to be 100% certain but at least it doesn't point to nothing as it did before!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not seem to meet WP:BAND. No songs in the charts, no gold recordings, no major label and you can count third party references on one hand. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete I disagree with Fly by Night. This artist has charted on many significant blogging charts such as the HypeMachine and Elbo.ws. The artist has nearly 20,000 Facebook fans. In addition, has toured with many major label acts such as Two Door Cinema Club, Memoryhouse, Peter Bjorn and John, Battles, Parts and Labor, Maps and Atlases, and others. In addition, their label Bobby Cahn Records is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group. Many other bands that have done less than these guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please state how the subject qualifies for inclusion by meeting the criteria set out at WP:BAND. By listing all of the bands, you are trying to say that the subject is notible by association. This is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — notability is not inherited. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• RESPONSE:

'1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.'
'4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.'
I believe these following citations cover 1 and 4.

[18] Guardian UK article
[19] or [20] Vancouver tour review
[21] Seattle tour review
[22] Headlining band for the [indie rock] portion of [The Roots] (aka [Jimmy Fallons] band) 4th of July Festival in Philadelphia 2011.
[23] specific mention in the TDCC wiki because of relevance
[24] NY Times
[25] WXPN International Festival
[ http://www.theowlmag.com/album-reviews/tropic-of-capricorn-by-work-drugs/ ] Owl Magazine Album Review
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneal99 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'
Yahoo News Article [26]
Last.FM Top Artists of the Year [27]
[28] Major Indie Label Secretly Canadian press release

'11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
[29] Album of the week for national NPR syndicate WXPN.org
[30] more from wxpn
This should satisfy your concern.

A quick google search reveals that this bandis not only real, but seems to be thriving. A google news search reveals that this band was recently in the top 10 blogged about artists on the hypemachine.They played the roots fourth of july festival last year according to philly.com

They also toured with two door cinema club which is listed on their wikepedia page.

This band was also listed by Last.FM as one of the top 10 discoveries of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.4.237.202 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is the first edit made by this IP address in three years. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please state how the subject qualifies for inclusion by meeting the criteria set out at WP:BAND. The so-called "Google test" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. In addition, the argument that the subject is notible because they toured with someone famous is another one to avoid — notability canot be inherited. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with above. Currently working to update the info. Somebody didn't do a very good job setting this thing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayneal99 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this !vote was made by a single purpose account. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this vote was made by someone who is trying to contribute factual references to a new article. While I understand and respect the fact that you are a "super user", I don't appreciate the attempts at belittling and discrediting my post statistics, while I'm simply trying to contribute to this community. I understand that I am a new user, but what is truly the difference? I am an 20 year old college student and this is my first entry into Wikipedia. Does that alone discredit my information about this band or anything I post? Should my freedom of speech be threatened by someone who is clearly outside of their wheel house when it comes to indie rock music? Isn't that the point of Wikipedia. I know a bit more about indie rock and you know a bit more about math. Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are many half credible artists trying to create a Wikipedia entry for "fame and glory," but I truly felt this was an artist that deserved to be on here based on the facts of the case. I feel that several of the articles fully satisfy the criteria set out at WP:BAND and thus it should be up for the voting public to decide. Respectfully, Jay. — Jay Neal —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I fixed your signature here. Your link includes a capital N which does not exist in your username. Please fix your signature as soon as possible, as it currently does not link to you as a user. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete Work Drugs is a well-known band and it makes amazing music. It needs to have a Wiki page and some of us fans are helping them out by making sure the citations are good and the research is well done. I really hope it is allowed to stay! Tejal Johri (talk) 09:05 PM, 17 July 2012
• Delete My understanding is that "national music chart" would not be for an online music service, nor would a chart of most blogged bands. Facebook fans don't help establish notability. The coverage in all but the Guardian seems to be trivial, failing WP:GNG. Jayneal99, The article is not being judged on the newness of your account, nor has any attempt been made to belittle or discredit you or your statistics. The WP:SPA notice is a standard thing. No one is trying to threaten your freedom of speech. There is concern since individuals occasionally create accounts to push exactly one viewpoint (justified here by the last commenter claiming to be a fan). It is not meant to offend. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not sure what "The Oyster" is, but on the possibility that it may be a RS, that would satisfy GNG. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This band meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG, per coverage in The Guardian and The Oyster Magazine. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Criterion 1 asks for "multiple…published works". The Guardian and The Oyster are two published works. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Since when is two not multiple? Jayneal99 —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the dictionary: multiple is a synonymy for several/many. This is the way the policy is meant to be interpreted. If two sources were acceptable then it would say "At least two…". — Fly by Night (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just did. "Having or involving more than one part, individual, etc: he had multiple injuries" I'm sorry, but your argument fails under its own weight there. Note also that GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated above this band meets 4 of Wikipedia's criteria --Gart99 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In August of 2011, the song "Rad Racer" was featured in the Urban Outfitters commerical for "Favorite Fall Jeans of 2011"... That has to count for something too,
• also one could argue that "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style"--Gart99 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please verify these, so far unsubstantiated claims, by citing reliable sources, and stating explicitly which criteria they apply to? I will be happy to withdraw this nomination is someone can supply reliable evidence that this group satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. So far, all-but-one post on this discussion has been from a fan of the band, or a last.fm user. I have nothing against this group. I do, however, have something about diluting the integrity of Wikipedia. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not out to defend WP:MUSICBIO at the moment, but I can cover WP:GNG, which should suffice. Please see my response to you above concerning the definition of multiple. I can also confirm in my experience with AfC and AfD that WP:GNG is interpreted (at least by some) to mean not less than two independent, reliable sources. Technically, per WP:WHYN, "We require the existence of at least one secondary source," note that it does not say two. Of course, that is likely not enough to satisfy GNG, but I feel it important to point out. For GNG, though, the Guardian is a reliable source and has in-depth coverage. Knowing nothing of it, I cannot personally vouch for the Oyster. Unless you are calling it into question, though, you would logically agree to a second, as it is also in-depth. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_(magazine) if this isn't a reliable source, why does it have a wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we just established the credibility of The Guardian and Oyster Magazines.--Gart99 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Facebook has a Wikipedia page, but it is patently not reliable as a source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep, maybe borderline notability, but seems to pass WP:BAND#10 ([31]) and, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Centre was prodded for failing to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The proposed deletion was contested by an editor claiming settlements have presumed notability. I was unable to find a notability guideline confirming this, and therefore consider Howie Centre a candidate for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's General Notabiliy Guideline due to the absence of online or non-local sources establishing notability. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is this essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography), which claims to summarise consensus. Howie Centre appears on maps, has its own school and Fire Station, it's evidently more than one house and a tree. I've only ever seen articles about populated places deleted when there's no evidence of their existence. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NGEO says that legal recognition is sufficient for keeping and early closure. Here is some census data for the community census, which should be enough to establish legal recognition. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a population center to me. The editor removing the prod is correct. Settlements are considered inherently notable.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since you all seem to be relying on WP:NGEO, I've marked it as a draft proposal. Please consider contributing to the draft and discussion there. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm going by long standing consensus, as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES as well as the common sense clause in WP:NOTABILITY. Suddenly changing the essay WP:NGEO as you just tried to do because you don't like the probable outcome of one afd is not going to change long standing consensus where there was no sign of consensus changing, including in this afd. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the consensus, having observed it in other places since proposing this AfD, but feel it should be formalized through a guideline, which the essay is not. G. C. Hood (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had recognized consensus, why did you nominate this for AfD? --Oakshade (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, per Wikipedia's Five pillars. Also keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Pair : Zack and Aerith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory on a pair of characters from FF7 is too derived to be of encyclopedic value. Also is unlikely to ever contain anything but OR. -- Selket ^Talk 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced. Unencyclopedic. OR. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Nothing but one giant original research personal essay regarding fanfiction. Absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete, Wikipedia is not fanfiction. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This article is no more than speculation by a fan. Metagame (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete per above. This (along with the other articles the user has added that are up for some form of deletion) are non-encyclopedic, fancruft, and pretty much everything that WP:NOT stands for. I'd say this should be closed now as a snow delete because there's just no saving this entry in any way, shape, or form.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Pair: Cloud and Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced. Original Research. Reads like a fan essay, not an encyclopedia page. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTBLOG... I could go on. I really wish there were speedy criteria for this sort of thing. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Nothing but one giant original research personal essay regarding fanfiction. Absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia. (Not even very good by forum post standards really.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There are no sources and the article even admits that the two characters have never even met making this couple even weaker than it initally appears.--208.124.208.90 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you even discussing it? --Niemti (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow delete, Wikipedia is not fanfiction. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. No sources and completely unencyclopedic, among other things. Metagame (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This is another one of those examples of something that's everything that WP:NOT is here for. Unfortunately this is something that doesn't fit neatly into any of the speedy categories, so it has to come to AfD. Can we get this snow closed? This doesn't have a chance of surviving.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a10, title is Portuguese for Content. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article seems to be a very long dictionary definition... In Portuguese! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As DGG notes, this may well be a notable subject, but the consensus is that the WP:TNT is needed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-work attitudes in Haredi Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV article, inflammatory by its very name. Totally inappropriate and extremely offensive. While the issues raised certainly warrant mentioning, this should be as part of the larger article on Haredi Judaism and it should be in a neutral manner, which this article most definintely is not. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the article title is inherently non-neutral and the content belongs in Haredi Judaism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I slightly edited the article (more like, I completely re-wrote it), attempting to turn the content into something more neutral. For reference, this is the previous person, the way it was when I opened the AfD. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Compliments to Piz d'Es-Cha for xis constructive efforts to improve this. The subject matter here is a bona fide issue of controversy in Israel, at least, and maybe elsewhere. A properly NPOV discussion of the topic should have a home somewhere--maybe at Haredi Judaism#Employment, but probably there could be (and perhaps there already is), enough to justify a spinoff article. If we do end up keeping the separate article, it should have a more NPOV title -- something like Haredi Judaism and secular employment, though I'm sure someone can come up with a better one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is written quite fairly. While the article states that there are some Haredi Jews who are opposed to working, it also mentions that other Haredi Jews are opposed to these attitudes, and that many Haredi Jews themselves are trying to change this. It lifts the information straight from the sources, which themselves, are mostly quite fair. Wikipedia does not whitewash its subjects. I am Jewish myself, and I do not believe in whitewashing the people of my own faith. The sources provided come from a variety of publications that tell it exactly as it is. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is clear from the sources (those cited and others available) that the phenomenon of ultra-Orthodox in Israel (and possibly elsewhere) not working is notable. Perceived POV issues with the title or with parts of the article can be resolved through moves and edits, not deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Rename and Drastically Rewrite) The title of the article is a tremendous POV problem that is by far the biggest problem and is contradicted by the content of the article. Imagine an article titled Anti-work attitudes in American pre-teens that stated "About 99% of children ages 6-10 in the United States presently voluntarily do not participate in the secular labor market in order to pursue full-time education and are supported almost entirely through income generated by their parents and government grants given exclusively to those under the age of 18." Another article, titled Anti-work attitudes in American college students might state that "About 80% of college students in the United States presently voluntarily do not participate in the secular labor market in order to pursue full-time education and are supported almost entirely through funds provided by their parents, through charitable contributions made to colleges and universities and with the assistance of heavily subsidized loan programs that cover the cost of their studies, even though they are eligible and capable of obtaining employment and earning income on their own without being a drain on public resources." Sure both are true, but it's written from an entirely slanted perspective which presupposes that these pre-teens shouldn't be in school and should be working, which sounds blindingly obvious in a Western society that believes that children should absolutely not be working and should absolutely be in school and that is of the opinion that time spent by young adults in college is an overall benefit to society. From the perspective of many Haredi Jews, they too believe that Torah study is a goal that justifies their actions. Haredi Jews are not shirking work; what they are doing is failing to fulfill an expectation of secular Western society that education ends by the time someone reaches their mid to late 20s (or beyond in some extreme cases) and that biased POV suffuses the entire article. Without an entirely different title and without a near-complete rewrite, the POV issues presented here are insurmountable. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SYNTH and OR and ignorant WP:HATE. This article is unrecoverable since it is disgustingly one sided, out of context, and false. What more? The sources are from the media, not anything deeply close to rabbinical reliable sources. --Shuki (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article title is inherently non-neutral and lacks academic sourcing, a prerequisite for such kinds of articles Ankh.Morpork 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, starting with Rename, then fixing content POV issues. The sources are out there, giving the topic a neutral treatment is probably possible. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to fix. WP does not tolerate articles like this. There is no article about Anti-work attitudes in Spain, or Anti-paying taxes in Islam. --Shuki (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there isn't, it's because a) that's a poor name b) There aren't sources for it and/or c) no one has written it. This does appear to be an actual topic of discussion though, so there is the possibility of neutrally reporting the relevant viewpoints. If WP:TNT is necessary though, I won't be opposed. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect whatever is salient to Haredi Judaism, otherwise it's just a tendentious violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Haredim are NOT "anti-work" as that would verge on an anti-semitic libel. In the USA and the West Haredim work. In Israel they have issues with going to the army that hinders them from getting jobs (see: Refusal to serve in the Israeli military#Haredi Jews) while there is a positive Torah-study culture, but they are not "anti-work" which makes them sound retarded and they are most definitely not that. IZAK (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Starting from the anti-POV title, the article comes at the topic with a strong bias, making the lead read like a back-and-forth apology for "anti-work attitudes". The body of the article is a superficial treatment of a complicated subject and does not have proper referencing. Any reliable sources should be incorporated into the subject already covered in Haredi Judaism. Yoninah (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FORK, WP:TNT, Yoninah's arguments, and WP:SOAP. What a mess, filled with weasel words. It may be true, but for this inflamatory article, we need much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just renamed it to Views of work in Haredi Judaism to be more neutral. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weasel wording makes the title different, but the inherent bias / POV remains. Where are the articles for Views of work in Presbyterianism, Views of work in Buddhism or Views of work in Santeria? OK, there is an article for Protestant work ethic, but that's a concept with a far more genuine pedigree in scholarly literature. The inherent point of the article -- even with the new title -- is that many Haredi Jews devote their lives to the study of Torah when by all rights they should be working and earning a living, rather than accepting government aid and charity, and that there is something inherently wrong with that life choice. The article is irredeemably biased and should be deleted. It is clear that a rename and rewrite will never solve the inherent bias here. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it may seem silly to have an article about the views of work in every religion. But the general notability guideline matters a lot. The topic of working among Haredi Jews has been the subject of many reliable sources over the course of many years as some Haredi Jews have either made the choice not to work or otherwise been forced not to, and other Haredi Jews and other Jewish groups altogether have opinions supporting their employment. In most other religions, you will not find such articles, so the GNG cannot be met with them. Xyz7890 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The creator of the article is User Xyz7890 (talk · contribs) who has just renamed it to the euphemistic "nicer sounding" "Views of work in Haredi Judaism", since he sees that his article is facing a lot of flack. It is highly unusual and probably wrong for the creator of any article to move and change a name of an article while it faces an AfD. It is intellectually dishonest and moves the goal posts and makes it hard to keep comments in an AfD focused. Improving an existing article is fine, but moving its name around in an attempt to camouflage its original offensive and misleading title is not acceptable. The article should be moved back to its original name. Even under its new title, the article is clearly a violation of WP:POVFORK and anything that is worth it can go to the main Haredi Judaism article as a couple of sentences. IZAK (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Note The above note is not strictly correct. Fixing problems highlighted in the AfD discussion is encouraged, and changing the title, while it may cause confusion, can be done, so long as it's made appropriately clear that has happened, consider Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. In fact, anyone here can work to improve the article even as this discussion is ongoing, many articles are saved in this manner. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2.5 Additionally, if you want to move some of the content to another article instead of rewriting, I'd recommend calling for a merge, makes things easier. Darryl from Mars (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think that the new title was legitimately intended to address concerns raised here. On the other hand, WP:AFDEQ states that "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track." Alansohn (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a propagandistic article to the extent of G11. The title change helps, but the negative implications of the wording remain. After first stating correctly that this does not apply to the majority of Haredi, and that it applies even in Israeli to only a little over half of the group, the article continues as if it does apply to all. The paragraph contrasting the situation in Israel with that elsewhere seems designed to cast a negative light upon the attitudes in Israel, by emphasising the variety of occupations undertaken elsewhere. The article discusses not just the employment situation, but the funding sources of the movement, the exemption from military service, & political participation. I especially noticed the sentence " Some believe this could lead to an economic collapse". The source is actually one individual, not "some".

I have repeatedly argued here that articles about features of traditional Judaism that are in conflict with most contemporary attitudes should be rewritten, not deleted, although I am aware such articles have sometimes been written with the purpose of denigrating the religion and the culture. This particular topic is real, and should be covered, & I am not even going to say that I disagree with some of the views in the quoted sources. But this article is hopelessly contaminated. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources show this is notable issue. Article does not a lot of cleanup. AfD is not cleanup. Stedrick (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your comment, Stedrick? "Article does need a lot of cleanup"? Or "Article does not need a lot of cleanup"? Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Indian film industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema. This article just borrows text from all four and presents a product with an unofficial and highly vague title which is barely mentioned in any sources. Plus, the creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another editor. Secret of success (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the article's history, I see no problem with a well-sourced article offering an overview of the Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema industries... and readers are always welcome to vist the individual articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the overview could very well be presented in Cinema of India. If there is South Indian film industry, there must also be provision for 'North Indian film industry' and 'East Indian film industry'. But these terms are never used by people and highly vague. There is no common meaning for the term and the industries, whenever referred to, are done so separately. Secret of success (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is indeed a lot of scope for this article to mention about the commonalities of the four cine industries which could not be included in the individual articles. But, right now, the article is heavily biased towards tamil cinema. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what in "common" can be mentioned for an encyclopedic article to stay, as you claim? Secret of success (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the article can only be collection of these 4 articles or turn into original research trying to find commonalities in these 4 cinemas. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing but original research and WP:SYNTH from a POV pushing sockmaster peddling his wares on language through this article now. I believe we are an encyclopaedia, therefore, this is not the place for such articles. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the information is taken directly from Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema, but is SYNTH and OR or POV, then those other articles must be guilty of SYNTH, OR, and POV as well. Should they all be deleted as well? or shall we propose all be merged (as User:Secret of success suggests above) into Cinema of India? I believe we do have sourcing for an article titled "South Indian film industry", specially as we do have numerous reliable sources which refer to it precidely as that... "South Indian film industry".[32][33][34] As well as sources for a possible article describing the North Indian film industry.[35] Just sayin.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure "The Madras presidency was divided into linguistic States, known today as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The division marked the beginning of a new era in South Indian cinema. Cinema was celebrated regionally and exclusively in the language of the respective State." is an exceptionally well sourced statement, along with the many others like this. Given that it's on Wikipedia, that statement must be correct. Just sayin, Michael. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the West India article, Mumbai, the city where Bollywood is based is a part of it. In that case, Bollywood falls under the 'West Indian film industry' but till now no one has used the term to describe. As Mumbai is not a part of North India, Bollywood is not a part of the North Indian film industry. But look at the number of sources referring to it as such. That is why, these terms are highly vague and do not possess an official definition. There is no reason as to why Cinema of India cannot accommodate info from this article. Secret of success (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'North Indian film industry' could be a vague term. But 'South Indian film industry' is certainly not. Please have a look at the number of articles in National newspapers that I have quoted in the below comment (I am sure there are much more available). I could not find the term 'North indian film industry' in any national newspapers. The only instance was "We request the brothers in the North Indian film industry not to attend the IIFA awards" quoted in 'India Today'. This is a quotation by some one, and not an editorial statement written by any journalist. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the term 'South Indian film industry' can exist only when it is ambiguous to North, West or East Indian industries. If there are no articles possible on the latter three, the ambiguity is unnecessary and the title becomes 'Indian film industry' which already exists. Secret of success (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the government that classifies the film industry into South, North, etc to expect a uniformity. The term is coined by the media and people and there are sufficient evidences for it. The term exists because of the similarity between the four cine industries. North, West, East does not have a group of cine industries together, and hence there are no terms like 'West Indian cine industry', 'North Indian...'. The fact that North, East, West film industries doesn't exist should not stop having an article on 'South Indian film industry'. If a topic meets the notability guideline, it can have its own article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, even if the term is mentioned only by the media and has no official usage, it can still have an article? Secret of success (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Many articles in Wikipedia are of that kind. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example? Btw, do South Indian films have a common governing body like the Film Producers Association (Governmental)? All the film industry articles I have seen till date have one. Secret of success (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article does not need the existence of any such association. We can write that the term 'South Indian film industry' refers to the 4 cine industries, and write about the actors, producers, technicians who work across all 4 industries, and the film fare awards that are given together for the 4 industries, and mention that film remakes are common and frequent among the 4 industries, etc, etc.... --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the South becomes a film industry only if it is officially recognized by a governing body. As the media have coined it and there is no official acceptance, it becomes gossip, which is unencyclopedic. The highest authority for the Indian film industry is the CBFC, and it does not even use that word in certifying films. They are always grouped as separate ones. The only proper material you can coin here is the Filmfare part. Also, it does not answer as to why the info cannot be written in Cinema of India. Secret of success (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this-South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce? and where would you write these in Cinema of India. a separate section? or inside or each of the section 'Tamil Cinema', 'Telugu Cinema'...?? --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...All right, your last comment has made me change my stance to a certain extent. The South Indian film industry is governed by a widely supported organization, constituting the film chamber of commerce from all the four industries. This makes them official to some extent. Please note my comment below. Secret of success (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let me make my stance more clear. I agree that the content in the article is heavily biased POV pushing and some of the statements unsourced. But, that is not a sufficient rationale for deletion. An article must be deleted only when the subject of the article (South indian film industry in this case) is not notable and does not deserve an article on its own. Look at the media articles below:

IIFA puts the spotlight on the South Indian film industry - Times of India
South film industry gets bigger - Times of India
South film industry to boycott those who attend IIFA - Indian Express
South film industry backs banned actress Nikita Thukral - Hindustan Times
Sabu Cyril's too expensive for South Indian cinema - Hindustan Times
Nayantara- The Queen of South Indian Box Office - New Indian Express
South Indian films rocked at National Awards - Hindustan Times
South-Indian films make a splash - Hindustan Times
South Indian movies: The good, the bad and the ugly - Hindu Business Line

The term 'South indian film industry' is well known among the media as well as the people. What the article needs is a complete clean up: removal of unsourced statements and removal of irrelevant POV statements.-Anbu121 (talk me) 10:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article has nothing different in it. Its simply combination of selective info from 4 articles. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given by SpacemanSpiff. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As nom, I am changing my stance due to the fact that the South Indian film industry is working under the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, a governmental organization. Secret of success (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Johns Orthodox Church, Kadammanitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. This seems to be a non-notable church with no independent sources. Article was a sub-stub (without any evidence of notability and a borderline speedy candidate if you consider churches to be a "group" not a "building"). Now the article reads like an advertisement, and there are still no reliable, independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll be interested to see how this goes. A church established as far back as 1842 would normally be declared as automatically notable at AfD, in my experience. Churches are established landmarks, have congregations, communal activities and importance to their community as a consequence. However, this article is a car crash in terms of the way it is written, highly promotional in nature and sourced only to the church website. My head says 'delete' but... if one reliable independent source can be located, I'll advocate 'keep and clean up'... Sionk (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to delete it, but if sources can be found, I would be up for helping out with cleaning up. sageinevntor 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. most of the article was a copyright violation of the church website and I've removed the offending section. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lack sources; desperate output for a search in google. A church built in 19th century is not an ancient one if we consider the history of Saint Thomas Christians. There are really hundreds of such churches in Kerala. -AshLey ^Msg 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only source is self-referential. Perhaps incubate it until sources can be found? Bearian (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches, for which I don;t think it passes. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Mere age does not make a Church building or the community attached to it notable. (If it did there would probably be 10,000 notable ones in England.) However, if it were one of the earliest in the area it might well be. Some reliable sources which imply notability are a minimum.Jpacobb (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Kadammanitta. (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - article length is quite short, and so merger/redirection to Year 2000 problem may be appropriate, if editors of the page form such a consensus. Not really discussed here. WilyD 08:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable concept, no external reliable sources indicate its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Shows no evidence of notability, plus it's unsorurced. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is actually a source. Look at the page why don't you? Also, I believe due diligence is not being done here. My response (to the hastily added speedy deletion tag) on the talk page is left unresponded to. Its neither proper nor polite to ignore my response and instead file an AFD. I don't appreciate this in the least bit. Why not spend 30 seconds talking to me so we can figure out where we disagree. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I'm going to keep my argument for the article's notability where I left it, on the article's talk page. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a well known technique for handling two digit dates. It became notable as a solution to the Y2K problem and windowing is mentioned at Year 2000 problem. The article is new and needs a lot of work, but it shouldn't be difficult to find sources. There is scope for expanding the article, for example, here is a variant of the technique that uses a sliding window (sliding window). CodeTheorist (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The only context where there's any mention of it I found is provided in that Y2K article. It's a trivial subset of the Y2K issue at best, and it's already covered there. Perhaps you could describe it as a premature fork, but with the same conclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge is not the "same conclusion" as a delete, Shadow Fresheneesz (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge should be considered WP:BEFORE nomination, not during. Please do the required work before nominating something. --Kvng (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued for a merge. You both misunderstand. I'm saying it's a trivial fork of the Y2K article. There's nothing to merge because the information is already in the fork. And saying this is a BEFORE issue is ridiculous. Even if it was a merge suggestion, merge is a perfectly valid conclusion at AfD. I'm not sure how you think BEFORE somehow excludes that possibility. But again, merge was never the argument. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem right there Shadow. Merges, redirects, and article improvements should be considered *before* marking something for deletion. A merge is only a valid conclusion of an AfD when the AfD was created improperly in the first place (as it was here). Fresheneesz (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Date windowing is a very widely used technique. It was used extensively to address the Y2K problem, and is still being used in newly developed software. I believe date windowing will become even more notable when all those Y2K "fixes" hit the end of their date windows. Let this article live and develop. Mr Barndoor 13:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Barndoor (talk • contribs)

• Keep see Year_2000_problem#Programming_solutions. --Kvng (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my argument for deletion... it's an unnecessary content fork on a trivial subset of a topic that's already amply covered there. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being terse. There's a reliable source there citing the topic. That was one of your complaints in nominating this for AfD. If you believe this topic is adequately covered in Year_2000_problem you should have suggested a merge WP:BEFORE nominating here. --Kvng (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We see date windowing used all the time in everyday life here in the U.S. at least. Many governmental sites still rely on it. The article needs a lot of work, but removing it is not the right answer—expanding it is. In particular, I'd like to see it cover problems that occur with date windowing in more detail. Abhayakara (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Aside from the unsourced claims above about its relevance, here are a few common searches for the term, and their utter lack of notability: 1) Google book search for "date window" computer science, entire first page reveals nothing related to this topic, rather the more colloquial use of the term to describe a time-frame around a certain date, like in law or anthropology. 2) Book search for "date windowing". This is the most fruitful search. There's actually a published book reference to it, and it's mentioned in government reports. Notably though, every hit on the first page is related to Y2K. The book hits may look notable, but keep in mind in both instances there is 1 paragraph dedicated to it in books designed specifically around debugging software systems. That is, 1 paragraph in a 400 page book, and 1 subsection of a chapter in the other. The rest of the mentions are all related to Y2K issues. Simple programming workarounds used sparingly in code (as opposed to fundamental structures, like loops and control statements) are not notable enough for their own article unless there's sufficient nontrivial mentions. Moreover, it's amply covered in the Y2K article. I'm befuddled at most of the responses above since there's little non trivial reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your assessment is true, that it isn't notable enough to have its own article, the information is clearly good for an encyclopedia and it is cited. A deletion is inappropriate. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. I'm closing this early because the nominator himself has voted "keep with rewrite" below, which I take to be a withdrawal of the AFD. Angr (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion. It appears to be original research and cites only a single reference for the entire page. This concept doesn't even exist in any of the mainstream fields related to this sort of topic including linguistics or grammar.Drew.ward (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that a verb has "little semantic content" - evidently, it wouldn't be in the sentence if it didn't contribute to its meaning. Contribution to meaning isn't something that can be quantified ("the weak verb adds 5% of the meaning"). Of course, if this is a category which has been suggested by some professional linguists, it may be notable, but would need more information about who is proposing it. The article as it is presents it as an established concept. The article discusses valid questions of semantic composition, but this would probably fit better in other articles. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your first sentence; there are plenty of examples of words that only serve syntactic structure, without meaning of their own. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Is notable based on evidence provided below. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are but a few of many scholarly publications on the topic:

• Grimshaw, Jane, and Mester, Armin (1988). "Light Verbs and Θ-Marking". Linguistic Inquiry 19(2):205–232.
• Miyamoto, T. (2000). The Light Verb Construction in Japanese: the role of the verbal noun. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (2001). "On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs". In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H., editors, Semi-lexical Categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words, pp. 323–370. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
• Stevenson, S., Fazly, A., and North, R. (2004). "Statistical measures of the semi-productivity of light verb constructions". In Proceedings of the ACL 2004 Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Integrating Processing, pp. 1–8, Barcelona, Spain. ACL
• Yee Fan Tan, Min-Yen Kan, and Hang Cui (2006). "Extending corpus-based identification of light verb constructions using a supervised learning framework". In Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on Multi-Word Expressions in a Multilingual Contexts, pp. 49–56, Trento, Italy, April. ACL.
• Samardžić, Tanja and Merlo, Paola (2010). "Cross-lingual variation of light verb constructions: Using paral­lel corpora and automatic alignment for linguistic re­search". In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on NLP and Linguistics: Finding the Common Ground, pp. 52–60, Uppsala, Sweden, July. ACL.

This should suffice to establish that the topic is notable, but Google scholar search will give you many more.  --Lambiam 14:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per evidence above. I do agree that the page could contain more references, and an explanation of what a light verb construction is. However, it doesn't make the topic non-notable. (Disclaimer: I am one of the authors cited above.) --unkx80 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - already sourced, and easily sourceable further. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added and other improvements by Lambiam, Tjo3ya, Unkx80 and others over the past couple of days, with my thanks to those editors. Cnilep (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources listed above by user Lambian clearly demonstrate notability. Not an expert by any means but I wondered if something could be added to the article to suggest that it is possibly not a universally accepted linguistic category. The article on Predicates does this well, although I stress that my remarks are from the point of view of a user rather than a potential editor. Cottonshirtτ 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with rewrite As the consensus seems to be "keep" and I will concur that the article has encyclopaedic value. However, I qualify this "keep" with the requirement that the article be rewritten to make it clear that this is only a single theory of many and that it's neither generally accepted nor a concrete part of the grammar of any given language. Also, I feel that the article (and mentions of it in other articles) should be reworded to light verb constructions as the theory proposed in the sources cited purports not that there is such thing as a "light verb" which is how this article reads and how most readers would interpret it, but rather that regular verbs may sometimes be used in such a way that they do not carry the ability to convey the full verbal content of the verbal construction in which they appear without functioning in tandem with an additional element. I would also recommend that rather than being treated as a sub-classification of verbs as it currently is (grouping them with things like auxiliaries in a functional manner) that instead the theory of these constructions be treated similarly to phrasal verbs and idiomatic constructions -- multi-word functional grammatical units which only taken as a whole convey a given set of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic qualities.Drew.ward (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Clive and Banana boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested PROD, I would tag for speedy delete (as hoax), but I didn't in the first instance so I don't think it would be appropriate to do so now. I can't find anything which substantiates the existence of this game. However if someone can a reference to it I'll also nominate for WP:Notability. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Complete lack of verifiability, likely either madeup or a hoax. --MuZemike 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. No sources. I should point out that Scratch is a programming language for children and is often used in schools, so this is probably a school project of some sort. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is probably a hoax. I googled it and nothing came up except this AfD and its WP page. It's unsourced and poorly written, as well. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a hoax. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 (No context). – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable band. One EP released on a minor label so far, with the band "currently working on their first full-length album". I cannot find any evidence that this band meets the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 10:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just found this, appears as a non (or not yet) notable band. Cavarrone (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If subject is notable, you sure can't tell by looking at this "article" (it's only at AFD because the CSD was removed by an anon IP). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This fellow may well exist, but unless we have some sort of verifiability and coverage, we have a failed BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Userfying can be considered if somebody does want to improve it and asks for an userfy.  Sandstein  06:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Slovenian film. Much of the article is devoted to the plot, and the critical reception is only mentioned in vague terms ("many critics..."). No sources, and I can't find anything on Google. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 08:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and return to its author. We have difficulties in finding sourcing for Slovenian films certainly and, as this is a new film, we can give this brand new article back to to its creator as a userspace draft while he finds and adds the required sources. Allow it back once issues are addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no need for userfying. No notability whatsoever. This is an amateur short film made by school kids, the "many critics..." part probably refers to their classmates. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? If it had notablity, I would not have suggested deletion, and am in no way stating that it be kept in article space. How did you make your determination that is was "an amateur short film made by school kids", and why would you suggest that a user not be allowed to work on an article in userspace? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, watch it yourself and then decide what's the point of hosting this description here, article space or not. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An amteurish film effort, no doubt... no matter who made it. And it does not belong in article space, but I had already said as much. But as EVERY editor started as newb, why would you suggest that a user not be allowed to practice on an article in userspace... even a crap article? Do you not think working in a sandbox can help a new editor improve even if he has chosen a topic that may never be suitable for mainspace? Even a totally awful work-in-progress as a userspace draft is per WP:UPYES and does not violate WP:UPNOT (unless that work violates the guides for using user sandboxes). User sandboxes or workspaces are created as places with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. In a workspsce, a user does not have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making changes. However, workspaces must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights still apply.

Do I think the article will ever be returned to mainspace? Nope. Does that mean we should prevent a new user from practicing and getting better? Nope. Do I think a new editor might benefit from practicing in his sandbox? Likely. And if the thing sat in userspace for a couple months without being worked on at all, then I could see an argument about WP:NOTWEBHOST as applicable and would Mfd it myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the text on the page Kinetiq is a blatant promotion ("So, basically these are just minor flaws and a fair trade for such a brilliant film"??) and clearly WP:UPNOT. In itself, this doesn't mean that the tone couldn't be improved, but the subject itself is far from notable and I don't see a point. The user can choose another, non-contentious subject for practicing if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia, but his editing pattern so far suggests that promoting the clip was his goal, not building an encyclopedia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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